4.5 Article

Randomised controlled study of clinical outcome following trophic feeding

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/fn.82.1.F29

关键词

trophic feeding; enteral nutrition; parenteral nutrition; infant; low birthweight

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims-To determine the effect of trophic feeding on clinical outcome in ill preterm infants. Methods-A randomised, controlled, prospective study of 100 preterm infants, weighing less than 1750 g at birth and requiring ventilatory support and parenteral nutrition, was performed. Group TF (48 infants) received trophic feeding from day 3 (0.5-1 ml/h) along with parenteral nutrition until ventilatory support finished. Group C (52 infants) received parenteral nutrition alone. Nutritive milk feeding was then introduced to both groups. Clinical outcomes measured included total energy intake and growth over the first six postnatal weeks, sepsis incidence, liver function, milk tolerance, duration of respiratory support, duration of hospital stay and complication incidence. Results-Groups were well matched for birthweight, gestation and CRIB scores. Infants in group TF had significantly greater energy intake, mean difference 41.4 (95% confidence interval 9, 73.7) kcal/kg p=0.02; weight gain, 130 (CI 1, 250) g p = 0.02; head circumference gain, mean difference 0.7 (CI 0.1, 1.3) cm, p = 0.04; fewer episodes of culture confirmed sepsis, mean difference -0.7 (-1.3, -0.2) episodes, p = 0.04; less parenteral nutrition, mean difference -11.5 (CI -20, -3) days, p = 0.03; tolerated full milk feeds (165 ml/kg/day ) earlier, mean difference -11.2 (CI -19, -3) days, p = 0.03; reduced requirement for supplemental oxygen, mean difference -22.4 (CI-41.5, -3.3) days, p 0.02; and were discharged home earlier, mean difference -22.1 (CI -42.1, -2.2) days, p = 0.04. There was no significant difference in the relative risk of any complication. Conclusions-Trophic feeding improves clinical outcome in ill preterm infants requiring parenteral nutrition.

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

4.5
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