4.5 Article

Investigation and management of gastro-oesophageal reflux inUnitedKingdom neonatal intensive care units

Journal

ACTA PAEDIATRICA
Volume 107, Issue 1, Pages 48-51

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apa.14073

Keywords

Gastro-oesophageal reflux; Multichannel intraluminal impedance (MII) study; pH study

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London
  2. Medical Research Council [G1000758, G1000758B] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Asthma UK [MRC-Asthma UK Centre, MRC-AsthmaUKCentre] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimIn 2004, wide variation in the investigation and management of gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) of infants on UK major neonatal units was demonstrated. Our aim was to resurvey neonatal practitioners to determine current practice and whether it was now evidence based. MethodsA questionnaire was sent to all 207 UK neonatal units. ResultsResponses were obtained from 84% of units. The most frequent investigation' was a trial of therapy (83% of units); pH studies were used in 38%, upper GI contrast studies in 19% and multichannel intraluminal impedance (MII)/pH studies in 5%. Only six units suggested a threshold for an abnormal pH study and two units for an abnormal MII study. Infants were commenced on antireflux medication without investigation always in 32% of units, often in 29%, occasionally in 19% and only never in 1%. Gaviscon was used as first line treatment in 60% of units, and other medications included ranitidine in 53%, thickening agents in 27%, proton pump inhibitors in 23%, domperidone in 22% and erythromycin in 6%. ConclusionThere remains a wide variation in diagnostic and treatment strategies for infants with suspected GOR on neonatal intensive care units, emphasising the need for randomised trials to determine appropriate GOR management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available