4.8 Article

High-dose oral erythromycin decreased the incidence of parenteral nutrition-associated cholestasis in preterm infants

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 132, 期 5, 页码 1726-1739

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.03.043

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: Feeding intolerance because of functional gastrointestinal dysmotility and parenteral nutrition-associated cholestasis (PNAC) are common problems in preterm, very-low-birth-weight (VLBW) infants. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study aimed to assess the effectiveness of high-dose oral erythromycin as a prokinetic agent in decreasing the incidence of PNAC. Two secondary end points, including the time to achieve full enteral feeding and the duration of parenteral nutrition, were also evaluated. Methods: infants consecutively admitted to the neonatal unit were randomized to receive erythromycin (12.5 mg/kg/dose every 6 hours for 14 days) or an equivalent volume of normal saline (placebo) if they attained less than half the total daily fluid intake (< 75 mL/kg/day) as milk feeds on day 14 of life. Results: Of 182 VLBW infants enrolled, 91 received erythromycin. The incidence of PNAC was significantly lower in erythromycin-treated infants (18/91) compared with placebo infants (37/91; P =.003). Treated infants achieved full enteral nutrition significantly earlier (mean, 10.1; SE, 1.7 days; P < .001), and the duration of parenteral nutrition was also significantly decreased by 10 days (P < .001). Importantly, fewer infants receiving erythromycin had 2 or more episodes of septicemia (n = 4) compared with placebo patients (n = 13, P = .03). No serious adverse effect was associated with erythromycin treatment. Conclusions: High-dose oral erythromycin can be considered as a rescue measure for VLBW infants who fail to establish adequate enteral nutrition and in whom anatomically obstructive pathologies of the gastrointestinal tract have been excluded.

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

4.8
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