DESIGN: Parallel-group randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio.
SETTING: Two regional tertiary neonatal intensive care units.
PATIENTS: 150 preterm infants less than 35 weeks gestation with birth weight between 1.0 and 1.5 kg were recruited.
INTERVENTIONS: Infants were enrolled to either 2-hourly or 3-hourly interval feeding after randomisation. Blinding was not possible due to the nature of the intervention.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to achieve full enteral feeding (≥100 mL/kg/day). Secondary outcomes include time to regain birth weight, episode of feeding intolerance, peak serum bilirubin levels, duration of phototherapy, episode of necrotising enterocolitis, nosocomial sepsis and gastro-oesophageal reflux.
RESULTS: 72 infants were available for primary outcome analysis in each group as three were excluded due to death-three deaths in each group. The mean time to full enteral feeding was 11.3 days in the 3-hourly group and 10.2 days in the 2-hourly group (mean difference 1.1 days; 95% CI -0.4 to 2.5; p=0.14). The mean time to regain birth weight was shorter in 3-hourly group (12.9 vs 14.8 days, p=0.04). Other subgroup analyses did not reveal additional significant results. No difference in adverse events was found between the groups.
CONCLUSION: 3-hourly feeding was comparable with 2-hourly feeding to achieve full enteral feeding without any evidence of increased adverse events.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12611000676910, pre-result.
METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted at the mixed medical- surgical of a tertiary ICU in Kuantan, Malaysia. The study was registered under the National Medical Research Register (NMRR-14-803-19813) and has received ethical approval. Inclusion criteria include adult admission longer than 48 hours who were started on enteral feeding. Chronic renal failure patients and those receiving dialysis were excluded. RH was defined as plasma phosphate less than 0.65 mmol/L and a drop of more than 0.16 mmol/L following feeding.
RESULTS: A total of 109 patients were recruited, of which 44 (42.6%) had RH. Patients with RH had higher SOFA score compared to those without (p=0.04). There were no differences in the APACHE II and NUTRIC scores. Serum albumin was lower in those with RH (p=0.04). After refeeding, patients with RH had lower serum phosphate, magnesium and albumin, and higher supplementation of phosphate, potassium and calcium. There were no differences in mortality, length of hospital or ICU stay.
CONCLUSIONS: Refeeding hypophosphataemia occurs in almost half of ICU admission. Risk factors for refeeding include high organ failure score and low albumin. Refeeding was associated with imbalances in phosphate, magnesium, potassium and calcium. Future larger study may further investigate these risk factors and long-term outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety of shorter feeding intervals (two hours or shorter) versus longer feeding intervals (three hours or more) and to compare the effects in terms of days taken to regain birth weight and to achieve full feeding.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to run comprehensive searches in CENTRAL (2020, Issue 6) and Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions, and CINAHL on 25 June 2020. We searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing short (e.g. one or two hours) versus long (e.g. three or four hours) feeding intervals in preterm infants of any birth weight, all or most of whom were less than 32 weeks' gestation. Infants could be of any postnatal age at trial entry, but eligible infants should not have received feeds before study entry, with the exception of minimal enteral feeding. We included studies of nasogastric or orogastric bolus feeding, breast milk or formula, in which the feeding interval is the intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were days taken to achieve full enteral feeding and days to regain birth weight. Our other outcomes were duration of hospital stay, episodes of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and growth during hospital stay (weight, length and head circumference).
MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs, involving 417 infants in the review. One study involving 350 infants is awaiting classification. All studies compared two-hourly versus three-hourly feeding interval. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low, but all studies had high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of the intervention. Three studies were included in meta-analysis for the number of days taken to achieve full enteral feeding (351 participants). The mean days to achieve full feeds was between eight and 11 days. There was little or no difference in days taken to achieve full enteral feeding between two-hourly and three-hourly feeding, but this finding was of low certainty (mean difference (MD) ‒0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‒1.60 to 0.36). There was low-certainty evidence that the days taken to regain birth weight may be slightly longer in infants receiving two-hourly feeding than in those receiving three-hourly feeding (MD 1.15, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.20; 3 studies, 350 participants). We are uncertain whether shorter feeding intervals have any effect on any of our secondary outcomes including the duration of hospital stay (MD ‒3.36, 95% CI ‒9.18 to 2.46; 2 studies, 207 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and the risk of NEC (typical risk ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.11; 4 studies, 417 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported growth during hospital stay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The low-certainty evidence we found in this review suggests that there may be no clinically important differences between two- and three-hourly feeding intervals. There is insufficient information about potential feeding complications and in particular NEC. No studies have looked at the effect of other feeding intervals and there is no long-term data on neurodevelopment or growth.