4.2 Article

How Close Are We to Achieving Energy and Nutrient Goals for Very Low Birth Weight Infants in the First Week?

期刊

JOURNAL OF PARENTERAL AND ENTERAL NUTRITION
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 500-506

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/0148607115594674

关键词

macronutrients; protein; energy; lipids; parenteral nutrition; enteral nutrition

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP 210093]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Emerging evidence suggests intakes of protein and energy as early as the first week of life in preterm very low birth weight (VLBW) infants are associated with improved neurodevelopment. In response, many neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) have launched new, more aggressive early feeding guidelines. The aim of this study was to evaluate enteral and parenteral energy and macronutrient intakes during the first postnatal week in VLBW infants admitted to NICUs that have introduced more aggressive early feeding guidelines. Materials and Methods: Estimated energy and macronutrient intakes were prospectively collected from VLBW infants fed exclusively mother's own milk and/or parenteral nutrition and compared with expert recommendations. Days to reach full enteral feeds (150 mL/kg/d) and discharge anthropometrics were examined. Results: By days 6 and 7, median protein and lipid intakes, respectively, reached recommended values (3.5 and 3.0 g/kg/d). However, by day 8, many infants remained below recommended intakes for protein (34%), lipid (34%), carbohydrate (68%), and energy (71%). Late-onset sepsis was associated with a decreased likelihood of reaching full enteral feeds on any given day (hazard ratio, 0.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.5; P .0009). There was no significant relationship between week 1 nutrient intakes and anthropometrics at discharge. Conclusion: Despite the introduction of more aggressive early feeding guidelines and improved energy and nutrient intakes compared with literature values, many VLBW infants remain below recommended nutrition goals in the first week.

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