4.2 Article

Implementation, Process, and Outcomes of Nutrition Best Practices for Infants <1500 g

期刊

NUTRITION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 614-624

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/0884533611418984

关键词

infant; infant, premature; growth; nutrition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Extrauterine growth restriction (EUGR; weight < 10th percentile) affects many infants < 1500 g birth weight (BW). EUGR is associated with poor neurodevelopmental outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of optimizing nutrition administration in infants <= 1500 g. Methods: A retrospective chart review compared infants <= 1500 g before (n = 32) and after (n = 49) implementation of nutrition practice changes designed to decrease EUGR. Changes included early aggressive parenteral nutrition (PN), early enteral feedings, trophic feedings, continuous feeding administration, protein fortification of 24-cal/oz mother's own breast milk, and development of a feeding intolerance algorithm. The authors evaluated demographics, growth parameters, secondary feeding, and discharge outcomes. Differences in subgroups of infants <= 1000 g and 1000-1500 g BW were assessed. Results: Implementation of the nutrition practice changes decreased EUGR as defined by weight < 10th percentile at discharge from 57% in the preimplementation group to 28% in the postimplementation group (P = .01). Weight percentile ranking at 36 weeks' gestational age increased significantly in infants 1001-1500 g, from the 13th to the 27th percentile (P = .004 and P = .01, respectively). Chronic lung disease decreased significantly (P = .02). There was no increase in necrotizing enterocolitis (6% pre vs 3% post) or in blood urea nitrogen. Days of PN and central line use were decreased (P = .02 and P = .07, respectively). Conclusions: Clearly defined changes in nutrition for infants <= 1500 g significantly improved growth outcomes without increasing undesired outcomes. (Nutr Clin Pract. 2011; 26:614-624)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据