Suppr超能文献

纯配方奶喂养的早产儿或低出生体重儿中,稀释配方奶与全强度配方奶的比较。

Dilute versus full-strength formula in exclusively formula-fed preterm or low birth weight infants.

作者信息

Basuki Fauziah, Hadiati Diah R, Turner Tari, McDonald Steve, Hakimi Mohammad

机构信息

Child Health Department, Sleman District Hospital, Jl Weling I no 107 G, CT VIII, Karang Gayam, Yogyakarta, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 55281.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 27;6(6):CD007263. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007263.pub3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Preterm infants have fewer nutrient reserves at birth than full-term infants and often receive artificial formula feeds in the absence of expressed breast milk. Although it is generally agreed that feeding must be initiated slowly and advanced with much greater deliberation than in a healthy, full-term infant, the way in which feeds are introduced and advanced in preterm infants varies widely. This review focuses on whether dilute or full-strength formula is the preferable mode of introducing feeds in preterm infants for whom expressed breast milk is unavailable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of dilute versus full-strength formula on the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis, feeding intolerance, weight gain, length of stay in hosptial and time to achieve full calorie intake in exclusively formula-fed preterm or low birth weight infants. A secondary objective was to assess the effects of different dilution strategies.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to update the search in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 9), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 1 October 2018), Embase (1980 to 1 October 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 1 October 2018).We searched clinical trials' registries for ongoing or recently completed trials (clinicaltrials.gov; the World Health Organization's International Trials Registry and Platform; and the ISRCTN Registry).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing strengths of formula milk in exclusively formula-fed preterm or low birth weight infants. We excluded studies if infants received formula as a supplement to breast milk.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed studies for inclusion. We collected data using the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal, with independent assessment of risk of bias and data extraction. We synthesised mean differences using a fixed-effect meta-analysis model. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies involving 102 preterm or low birth weight infants in the review. The studies compared dilute (double-volume, half-strength) formula with full-strength (20 kcal/oz (˜ 68 to 70 kcal/100 mL)) formula. We assessed all three studies as having unclear risk of bias due to the likely absence of blinding of study personnel and the potential for selection bias in the largest trial. Data for the primary outcome of necrotising enterocolitis were not reported in any of the studies. We could combine two of the studies (88 infants) in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that dilute formula with double-volume (half-strength) may lead to fewer episodes of gastric residuals per day (one study; mean difference (MD) -1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.20 to -0.20; low-certainty evidence), fewer episodes of gastric residuals per baby until attaining 100 kcal/kg (one study; MD -0.80, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.28; low-certainty evidence), fewer episodes of vomiting per day (one study; MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.01; low-certainty evidence) and fewer occurrences of abdominal distension greater than 2 cm (two studies; MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.13; low-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes, data suggest that infants in the dilute formula with double-volume (half-strength) group may have attained an adequate energy intake earlier than infants in the full-strength group (two studies; MD -2.26, 95% CI -2.85 to -1.67; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups for weight gain one week after commencement of intragastric feeds (one study; MD 0.05 kg, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.15; low-certainty evidence). Data were not reported for length of hospital stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence from three small, old trials that use of dilute formula in preterm or low birth weight formula-fed infants may lead to an important reduction in the time taken for preterm infants to attain an adequate energy intake.However, our confidence in this result is limited due to uncertainty over risk of bias and sparsity of available data. Dilute formula may reduce incidence of feeding intolerance, but the clinical significance of the reduction is uncertain. The impact on serious gastrointestinal problems, including necrotising enterocolitis, was not reported in any of the trials. Further randomised trials are needed to confirm these results.

摘要

背景

早产儿出生时的营养储备比足月儿少,在没有母乳的情况下通常接受人工配方奶喂养。尽管人们普遍认为,与健康的足月儿相比,早产儿的喂养必须缓慢开始且进展要更加审慎,但早产儿喂养的引入和进展方式差异很大。本综述关注的是,对于无法获得母乳的早产儿,稀释配方奶还是全强度配方奶是更合适的喂养引入方式。

目的

评估稀释配方奶与全强度配方奶对纯配方奶喂养的早产儿或低出生体重儿坏死性小肠结肠炎发病率、喂养不耐受、体重增加、住院时间和达到全热量摄入时间的影响。次要目的是评估不同稀释策略的效果。

检索方法

我们使用Cochrane新生儿组的标准检索策略,更新了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL 2018年第9期)、通过PubMed检索的MEDLINE(1966年至2018年10月1日)、Embase(1980年至2018年10月1日)和CINAHL(1982年至2018年10月1日)中的检索。我们检索了临床试验注册库,以查找正在进行或最近完成的试验(clinicaltrials.gov;世界卫生组织国际试验注册平台;以及ISRCTN注册库)。

入选标准

比较纯配方奶喂养的早产儿或低出生体重儿配方奶浓度的随机或半随机试验。如果婴儿接受配方奶作为母乳的补充,我们将排除该研究。

数据收集与分析

我们独立评估研究是否纳入。我们使用Cochrane新生儿组的标准方法收集数据,对偏倚风险和数据提取进行独立评估。我们使用固定效应荟萃分析模型综合平均差。我们使用GRADE方法评估证据的确定性。

主要结果

我们纳入了三项研究,共102名早产儿或低出生体重儿参与本综述。这些研究比较了稀释(双倍体积、半强度)配方奶与全强度(20千卡/盎司(约68至70千卡/100毫升))配方奶。由于研究人员可能缺乏盲法以及最大试验中存在选择偏倚的可能性,我们将所有三项研究的偏倚风险评估为不明确。所有研究均未报告坏死性小肠结肠炎主要结局的数据。我们可以将其中两项研究(88名婴儿)纳入荟萃分析。证据表明,双倍体积(半强度)的稀释配方奶可能导致每天的胃残余量发作次数减少(一项研究;平均差(MD)-1.20,95%置信区间(CI)-2.20至-0.20;低确定性证据),在达到100千卡/千克之前每个婴儿的胃残余量发作次数减少(一项研究;MD -0.80,95%CI -1.32至-0.28;低确定性证据),每天的呕吐发作次数减少(一项研究;MD -0.04, 95%CI -0.07至-0.01;低确定性证据),以及腹胀超过2厘米的发生率降低(两项研究;MD -0.16,95%CI -0.19至-0.13;低确定性证据)。对于次要结局,数据表明,双倍体积(半强度)稀释配方奶组的婴儿可能比全强度组的婴儿更早达到足够的能量摄入(两项研究;MD -2.26,95%CI -2.85至-1.67;低确定性证据)。胃内喂养开始一周后,两组之间的体重增加没有差异(一项研究;MD 0.05千克,95%CI -0.06至0.15;低确定性证据)。未报告住院时间的数据。

作者结论

三项小型、陈旧的试验提供了低确定性证据,表明在早产儿或低出生体重的配方奶喂养婴儿中使用稀释配方奶可能会显著缩短早产儿达到足够能量摄入所需的时间。然而,由于偏倚风险的不确定性和可用数据的稀缺性,我们对这一结果的信心有限。稀释配方奶可能会降低喂养不耐受的发生率,但其降低的临床意义尚不确定。所有试验均未报告对包括坏死性小肠结肠炎在内的严重胃肠道问题的影响。需要进一步的随机试验来证实这些结果。

相似文献

4
Early full enteral feeding for preterm or low birth weight infants.早产儿或低出生体重儿的早期完全肠内喂养。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Dec 27;12(12):CD013542. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013542.pub2.
5
Nutrient-enriched formula versus standard formula for preterm infants.早产儿营养强化配方奶粉与标准配方奶粉的对比
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jul 17;7(7):CD004204. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004204.pub3.

本文引用的文献

6
Milk osmolality: does it matter?奶渗透压:这有影响吗?
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2013 Mar;98(2):F166-9. doi: 10.1136/adc.2011.300492. Epub 2011 Sep 19.
7
Feeding the preterm infant.喂养早产儿。
BMJ. 2004 Nov 20;329(7476):1227-30. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7476.1227.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验