1 / 36

Position of equipoise on ‘when to start’

Position of equipoise on ‘when to start’. IUGR babies with AREDFV on antenatal Dopplers do have an increased risk of NEC BUT…no evidence that delaying feeds is of benefit AND…delaying feeds may increase;-

nicki
Download Presentation

Position of equipoise on ‘when to start’

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Position of equipoise on ‘when to start’ • IUGR babies with AREDFV on antenatal Dopplers do have an increased risk of NEC • BUT…no evidence that delaying feeds is of benefit • AND…delaying feeds may increase;- • sepsis, cholestasis, chronic lung disease, duration of intensive care and length of hospital stay

  2. Should one delay feeds?The ‘evidence’ • Cochrane review • ‘early’ < 4 days • 2 small studies included • 72 preterm infants only • No differences seen for • days feedings held, weight gain, conjugated jaundice, necrotizing enterocolitis and death. • Kennedy KA, Tyson JE. Early versus delayed initiation of progressive enteral feedings for parenterally fed low birth weight or preterm infants

  3. Where does current practice come from?

  4. Historical comparison in late 70s • Switch from aggressive to conservative management • Brown and Sweet (Mount Sinai N.Y) • Proven NEC in • 14 / 1,745 LBW infants 1970 – 1974 • 1 / 932 LBW infants 1974 - 1978

  5. Started feeds at 5-7 days in ‘at risk’ infants (not defined) • 3 hourly feeds of water, then diluted formula • Increased volume and concn over 16 days • No statistics in the paper! • Previous approach not described

  6. ‘early’ ‘late’ 0-24 hours (day 1) Nil by mouth Nil by mouth 24-48 hours (day 2) Start milk feeds according to tables 1 & 2 Nil by mouth 48-119 hours (day 3-5) Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 Nil by mouth 120-143 hours (day 6) Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 Start milk feeds according to tables 1 & 2 144 hours onwards (day 7+) Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 ADEPT Trial feeding regimes

  7. ‘early’ ‘late’ 0-24 hours (day 1) Nil by mouth Nil by mouth 24-48 hours (day 2) Start milk feeds according to tables 1 & 2 Nil by mouth 48-119 hours (day 3-5) Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 Nil by mouth 120-143 hours (day 6) Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 Start milk feeds according to tables 1 & 2 144 hours onwards (day 7+) Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 ADEPT Trial feeding regimes

  8. ‘early’ ‘late’ 0-24 hours (day 1) Nil by mouth Nil by mouth 24-48 hours (day 2) Start milk feeds according to tables 1 & 2 Nil by mouth 48-119 hours (day 3-5) Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 Nil by mouth 120-143 hours (day 6) Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 Start milk feeds according to tables 1 & 2 144 hours onwards (day 7+) Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 ADEPT Trial feeding regimes

  9. ‘early’ ‘late’ 0-24 hours (day 1) Nil by mouth Nil by mouth 24-48 hours (day 2) Start milk feeds according to tables 1 & 2 Nil by mouth 48-119 hours (day 3-5) Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 Nil by mouth 120-143 hours (day 6) Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 Start milk feeds according to tables 1 & 2 144 hours onwards (day 7+) Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 ADEPT Trial feeding regimes

  10. ‘early’ ‘late’ 0-24 hours (day 1) Nil by mouth Nil by mouth 24-48 hours (day 2) Start milk feeds according to tables 1 & 2 Nil by mouth 48-119 hours (day 3-5) Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 Nil by mouth 120-143 hours (day 6) Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 Start milk feeds according to tables 1 & 2 144 hours onwards (day 7+) Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 Progress with feeding according to tables 1 & 2 ADEPT Trial feeding regimes

  11. Day of initial milk feeding Dorling & McClure 1999 East Anglian SURVEY

  12. Day of feeding Volume of milk according to birth weight (ml/kg/HOUR) <600g 600-749g 750-999g 1000-1249g 1250g 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 3 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 4 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 6 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.5 7 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 - 4.5 8 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 - 4.5 5.0 - 5.5 9 3.5 4.0 4.0 - 4.5 5.0 - 5.5 6.0 - 6.25 10 4.0 4.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 5.5 6.0 - 6.25 11 4.5 - 5.0 5.5 - 6.0 6.0 - 6.25 12 5.5 - 6.0 6.25 13 6.25 14 Increase as required South West Neonatal Forum

  13. Day of feeding Volume of milk according to birth weight (ml/kg/DAY) <600g 600-749g 750-999g 1000-1249g 1250g 1 12 12 12 12 24 2 12 12 12 24 36 3 12 24 24 36 48 4 24 36 36 48 60 5 36 48 48 60 72 6 48 60 60 72 84 7 60 72 72 84 96 - 108 8 72 84 84 96 - 108 120-132 9 84 96 96-108 120-132 144-150 10 96 108-120 120-132 144-150 11 108-120 132-144 144-150 12 132-144 150 13 150 14 Increase as required South West Neonatal Forum

  14. Why not increase faster? • Schedules developed from Southwest practice • mid point of a ‘reasonable’ approach • ‘too fast’ might lead to accusation of raised NEC not representative of UK experience

  15. Milk types • Choice of milk • Mother’s own breast milk, • Donated breast milk • Infant formula (preterm / term) • Advise infants with gestation <34 weeks to be fed preterm formula within one week of starting milk. • BMF if additional nutrition required once baby tolerating > 150ml/kg/day.

  16. Exclusions and Deviations • Withholding feeds • or deviating from feeding schedule • for feed intolerance or clinical deterioration • At local clinician’s discretion.

  17. Exclusions and Deviations • Gastric residuals common. • Providing the infant is well and has no abnormal abdominal signs it is usually • Safe to continue with enteral feeds when gastric aspirate is 2-3 ml or less • (2 ml if <750 grams birth weight) • Mihatsch et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2002;35:144-8.

  18. Restarting after exclusion or Deviation • Either • restart from day 1 of schedule • or • re-start at the volume previously tolerated then increase as schedule • or • hold for one or more days at a certain volume and then increase as schedule

  19. Not reasons for deviation • type of milk available • ventilation status • presence of an UAC / UVC

  20. Milk feeding and ventilation 2 13

  21. UAC presence: the ‘evidence’ • 1 Small trial only • 29 infants: unable to exclude effect on NEC! • Cohort papers significant confounding data (sick infants need a UAC) • Davey, J Pediatr 1994. Feeding premature infants while low umbilical artery catheters are in place: a prospective, randomized trial.

  22. Milk feeding and UAC 2 13

  23. Breast milk better than formula (n=343) of NEC McGuire, Anthony Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2003. Donor human milk versus formula for preventing necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants: systematic review.

  24. A Breast Feeding Friendly Trial • Please encourage EBM as much as possible!

  25. Thank you for your attentionAny Questions?

  26. Speed of advance • Kennedy & Tyson. Rapid versus slow rate of advancement of feedings for promoting growth and preventing necrotizing enterocolitis in parenterally fed low-birth-weight infants (Cochrane Review). • 369 babies from three trials • > 20 v < 20 cc/kg/day increase

  27. Speed of advance • faster increase in feed volumes • reduction in days to full enteral feeding • less days to regain birth weight • NO effect on NEC • RR = 0.90 • 95% CI 0.46 - 1.77

  28. Trophic feeds / MEF etc • Stimulate endocrine and motor gut function • 10- 20 ml/kg/day for > 48 hours • Cochrane study of 6 trials • Tyson JE, Kennedy KA. Minimal enteral nutrition for promoting feeding tolerance and preventing morbidity in parenterally fed infants.

  29. MEF Cochrane review • Outcomes significantly affected by MEF • length of stay: • WMD 15.6 days less stay in MEF group (95% CI 8.5 to 22.8) • days to full feeding: • WMD 2.7 days less in MEF group (95% CI 0.98 to 4.4). • No difference in NEC or death rates • last updated in 1997: 3 studies since

  30. Further studies on MEN • Schanler • n=171, NEC 13 in MEF, 10 controls • McClure • n= 100, NEC 1 in MEF, 2 controls • Van Elberg • IUGR infants, n=42, NEC 0 in MEF, 1 control • Added to previous meta-analysis: NEC 10.5% in MEF, 9.4% controls (RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.84-1.36)

  31. ADEPT - exclusions • Major congenital abnormality • Twin-twin transfusion • Intra-uterine or exchange transfusion • Rhesus haemolysis • Multi-organ failure prior to randomisation • Inotrope support prior to randomisation • Already received enteral feed

  32. ADEPT outcomes • Primary outcomes • Time to reach full enteral feeds (for 72 hours) • NEC • Secondary outcomes • Death • Duration of level 1 and level 2 IC • Growth: wt and OFC z-scores at 36w & d/c • Sepsis, cholestasis, bowel perforation, CLD

  33. ADEPT sample size • Time to reach full feeds • data taken from East Anglia • 380 babies needed to show difference of 3 days with 90% power • NEC • Incidence approx 15% • 400 babies needed to show reduction to 7.5% with 60% power

  34. Thank you for your attentionAny Questions?

More Related