Feeding strategies for premature infants: randomized trial of gastrointestinal priming and tube-feeding method. Nasoduodenal versus nasogastric feeding in the very low birthweight infant. Nasogastric compared with nasoduodenal feeding in low birthweight infants. Slow versus rapid enteral feeding advancement in preterm newborn infants 1000-1499 g: a randomized controlled trial. Randomized controlled trial of slow vs rapid enteral feeding advancements on the clinical outcomes of preterm infants with birth weight 750-1250 g. Enteral feeding in very-low-birth-weight infants. A comparison of two nasogastric methods. Continuous feeding promotes gastrointestinal tolerance and growth in very low birth weight infants.
Data on enteral feeding management of premature infants are limited and often not the subject of randomized clinical trials. Several small studies suggest benefits from the early initiation of feeding, but do not assess the combined effects of time of initiation of feeding, tube-feeding method, and type of milk used. Either singly or in combination, these treatments may affect growth, bone mineralization, biochemical measures of nutritional status, and feeding tolerance, and, ultimately, the duration of hospitalization.
                A total of 171 premature infants, stratified by gestational age (26 to 30 weeks) and diet (human milk or preterm formula) were assigned randomly among four treatment combinations in a balanced two-way design comparing the presence or absence of gastrointestinal (GI) priming for 10 days and continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus tube-feeding.
                The major outcome, time required for infants to attain full oral feeding, was similar among treatments. GI priming was not associated with any measured adverse effect and was associated with better calcium and phosphorus retention, higher serum calcium and alkaline phosphatase activity, and shorter intestinal transit times. The bolus tube-feeding method was associated with significantly less feeding intolerance and greater rate of weight gain than the continuous method. In addition, the greater the quantity of human milk fed, the lower the morbidity.
                Early GI priming with human milk, using the bolus tube-feeding method, may provide the best advantage for the premature infant. The practicality, effectiveness, and safety of feeding very low birthweight infants (less than 1,300 gm) by continuous nasoduodenal infusion was assessed by comparison with continuous nasogastric feeding. The nasoduodenal group appeared to have a clear advantage over the nasogastric group for the overall period in terms of caloric intake (131 cal/kg/day vs. 106 cal/kg/day), average weight gain (16 gm/day vs. 10 gm/day), and safety. This advantage was even more striking in the first two weeks of life. A caloric intake of 120 cal/kg/day could be reached within 48 to 72 hours after tube placement in the nasoduodenal group but only after a week in the nasogastric group. Nasoduodenal feeding resulted in faster weight gain than comparable published data on conventional feeding, peripheral intravenous alimentation, and parenteral alimentation. There were no cases of aspiration associated with tubes placed in the duodenum whereas two cases of aspiration pneumonia were associated with tubes placed in the stomach. With the tip of the catheter in the duodenum, none of the complications reported with nasojejunal tubes (intussusception, perforation, or necrotizing enterocolitis) were seen, either in the initial pilot study reported here or in 50 additional infants. One hundred successive infants weighing less than 1500 g at birth were allocated alternately to intermittent nasogastric or continuous nasoduodenal feeding regimens. Eighty were appropriate for gestational age, and of these 25 fed successfully by nasogastric tube and 16 tolerated nasoduodenal feeding until 1600 g. No significant differences in either calorie intake or growth rates were identified throughout the seven weeks of the study. Because of the increased complexity and radiological exposure involved with feeding transpylorically, nasogastric feeding may be preferred as a method of feeding the low birthweight infant. To evaluate whether preterm neonates weighing 1000-1499 g at birth receiving rapid enteral feeding advancement at 30 mL/kg/day attain full feedings (180 mL/kg/day) earlier than those receiving slow enteral feeding advancement at 20 mL/kg/day without increase in the incidence of feeding intolerance or necrotizing enterocolitis.
                A total of 100 stable intramural neonates weighing between 1000 and 1499 g and gestational age less than 34 weeks were randomly allocated to enteral feeding (expressed human milk or formula) advancement of 20 mL/kg/day (n = 50) or 30 mL/kg/day (n = 50). RESULTs: Neonates in the rapid feeding advancement group achieved full volume feedings before the slow advancement group (median 7 days vs. 9 days) (p < 0.001), had significantly fewer days of intravenous fluids (median 2 days vs. 3.4 days) (p < 0.001), shorter length of stay in hospital (median 9.5 days vs. 11 days) (p = 0.003) and regained birth weight earlier (median 16 days vs. 22 days) (p < 0.001). There were no statistical differences in the proportion of infants with apnea, feed interruption or feed intolerance.
                Rapid enteral feeding advancements of 30 mL/kg/day are well tolerated by stable preterm neonates weighing 1000-1499 g. To evaluate the effect of slow vs rapid rates of advancement of enteral feed volumes on the clinical outcomes in preterm infants with 750-1250 g birth weight.
                A total of 92 stable neonates 750-1250 g and gestational age <32 weeks were randomly allocated to enteral feeding advancement of 20 mL/kg/d (n = 46) or 30 mL/kg/d (n = 46). The primary outcome was days to reach full enteral feeding, defined as 180 mL/kg/d. Secondary outcomes included rates of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and culture-proven sepsis, days of parenteral nutrition (PN), length of hospital stay, and growth end points.
                Neonates in the rapid-feeding advancement group achieved full enteral volume of feedings earlier than the slower advancement group. They received significantly fewer days of PN, exhibited a shorter time to regain birth weight, and had a shorter duration of hospital stay. The incidence of NEC and the number of episodes of feeding intolerance were not significantly different between the groups, whereas the incidence of culture-proven late-onset sepsis was significantly less in infants receiving a rapid feeding advancement. Excluding infants who were small for gestational age at birth, the incidence of extrauterine growth restriction was significantly reduced in the rapid-advancement group at 28 days and at hospital discharge.
                Rapid enteral feeding advancements in 750-1250 g birth weight infants reduce the time to reach full enteral feeding and the use of PN administration. Rapid-advancement enteral feed also decreases extrauterine growth restriction with improved short-term outcomes for these high-risk infants. Nutritional benefits and feeding-related complications were prospectively compared in 53 preterm very-low-birth-weight infants receiving isoenergetic feeding by either the continuous nasogastric (n = 30) or intermittent nasogastric (n = 23) route. Stepwise regression techniques were used to develop models relating feeding-associated factors. Feeding method significantly affected weight gain in infants 1000 to 1249 g birth weight with continuous nasogastric feeding associated with an additional weight gain of 3.6 to 6.1 g/kg/d. No effects of feeding method on changes in occipitofrontal circumference, triceps skin-fold thickness, bilirubin values, or total protein values were demonstrable. There were few major differences between feeding groups on measures of feeding complications. Continuous nasogastric feeding was fairly well tolerated and resulted in improved weight gain when compared with intermittent nasogastric feeding in preterm infants 1000 to 1249 g birth weight. To compare the effects of continuous versus intermittent feeding on gastrointestinal tolerance and growth in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants.
                In a randomized, controlled trial conducted at 3 neonatal units, 70 premature infants with a gestational age 24 to 29 weeks and birth weight < 1200 g were assigned to 1 of 3 feeding methods: continuous nasogastric feeding, intermittent nasogastric feeding, or intermittent orogastric feeding. Feeding was initiated within 30 hours of birth. Daily enteral and parenteral volumes, caloric and protein intakes, growth, enteral intolerance, and clinical complications were recorded. Cox regression analysis was used to determine primary outcome, the time to achieve full enteral feeding.
                The continuously fed infants achieved full enteral feeding significantly faster than the intermittently fed infants (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07 to 3.22). In stratified analysis according to birth weight, the improvement was even more pronounced in the smallest infants, those with birth weight < or = 850 g (adjusted HR = 4.13; 95% CI = 1.48 to 11.53). Growth rate was significantly faster in the continuously fed infants ( P = .002).
                In VLBW infants, continuous feeding seems to be better than intermittent feeding with regard to gastrointestinal tolerance and growth.
Small sample sizes, methodologic limitations, inconsistencies in controlling variables that may affect outcomes, and conflicting results of the studies to date make it difficult to make universal recommendations regarding the best tube feeding method for premature infants less than 1500 grams. The clinical benefits and risks of continuous versus intermittent nasogastric tube milk feeding cannot be reliably discerned from the limited information available from randomised trials to date.