Rumbold Alice R, Keir Amy, Collins Carmel T, Cooper Chris, Shepherd Emily S
SAHMRI Women and Kids, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, North Adelaide, Australia.
Adelaide Medical School and the Robinson Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 May 13;5(5):CD003743. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003743.pub3.
Many preterm infants otherwise ready for discharge remain hospitalised while they transition from gavage to full sucking feeds. Early discharge of stable preterm infants still requiring gavage feeds may have some benefits: it could reduce separation of parents and infants and reduce costs to the healthcare system and families compared with discharge home when on full sucking feeds. Potential disadvantages of early discharge include increased care burden for the family and the risk of complications related to gavage feeding. This is an update of a review first published in 2003 and last updated in 2015.
To assess the effectiveness and safety of early discharge with home support of gavage feeding for stable preterm infants who have not established full oral feeds compared with later discharge when full sucking feeds have been established.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and trial registries up to May 2024. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that enroled infants born before 37 weeks who required no intravenous nutrition at the time of discharge. The comparison of interest was early discharge home with gavage feeds and healthcare support versus later discharge home after attainment of full sucking feeds.
Critical outcomes were time to reach full sucking feeds, weight gain at latest time point measured, and breastfeeding on discharge from home support or hospital. Important outcomes included infection up to discharge (e.g. respiratory infections, use of intravenous antibiotics), breastfeeding at three months after discharge, rehospitalisation up to 12 months after discharge, and composite neurodevelopmental outcome at 12 months or later.
Two review authors independently screened and selected trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool RoB 1.
We presented dichotomous data as summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
There were no new studies available for inclusion in this update. As in the original review, we included one quasi-RCT (88 infants, 75 families) evaluating early discharge with home support of gavage feeding (early discharge with support) versus later discharge on full sucking feeds (later discharge) in physiologically stable preterm infants born before 37 weeks' gestation with an anticipated need for special care for at least one additional week. The study was conducted in Sweden in the 1990s.
Critical outcomes Time to reach full sucking feeds was not reported. Early discharge with support compared with later discharge may have little or no effect on daily weight gain from trial entry to discharge from home support or hospital, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -1.10 g/day, 95% CI -3.94 to 1.74; 88 infants). Early discharge with support compared with later discharge may have little or no effect on the risk of stopping any breastfeeding (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.58; 82 infants) and stopping fully breastfeeding (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.62; 82 infants) on discharge from home support or hospital, but the evidence is very uncertain. Important outcomes Early discharge with support compared with later discharge may reduce the risk of respiratory infections (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.83; 88 infants) and may have little or no effect on intravenous antibiotic use (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.87; 88 infants) up to discharge from home support or hospital, but the evidence for both outcomes is very uncertain. Early discharge with support compared with later discharge may have little or no effect on the risk of stopping any breastfeeding (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.57 to 4.48; 82 infants) or fully breastfeeding (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.50; 82 infants) at three months after discharge from home support or hospital, but the evidence is very uncertain. Early discharge with support compared with later discharge may have little or no effect on the need for rehospitalisation during the 12 months after discharge from home support or hospital, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.18; 82 infants). The included study did not report a composite neurodevelopmental outcome at 12 months or later. Certainty of the evidence We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for all outcomes due to risk of bias concerns and the imprecision of effect estimates from this small study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence, from one small quasi-RCT conducted in the 1990s, indicates early discharge with home support of gavage feeding compared with later discharge on full sucking feeds may result in little to no difference in weight gain up to discharge from home support/hospital, breastfeeding at discharge and at three months, and rehospitalisation up to 12 months. Early discharge with support versus later discharge may reduce the risk of respiratory infections but result in little to no difference in intravenous antibiotic use up to discharge from home support/hospital. The evidence for all outcomes is very uncertain. There is a need for high-quality RCTs to determine the benefits and harms of early discharge with home support for stable preterm infants in diverse settings and populations. The two ongoing studies (one completed but unpublished, the other with an unclear status) may contribute to addressing some of these gaps.
The review authors received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors for their work on this review update.
The 2003 and 2015 versions are available via 10.1002/14651858.CD003743 and 10.1002/14651858.CD003743.pub2.
许多原本准备出院的早产儿在从管饲过渡到完全吸吮喂养的过程中仍需住院。对于仍需管饲喂养的稳定早产儿,早期出院可能有一些益处:与完全吸吮喂养时出院回家相比,这可以减少父母与婴儿的分离,并降低医疗系统和家庭的成本。早期出院的潜在缺点包括家庭护理负担增加以及与管饲喂养相关的并发症风险。这是对2003年首次发表、2015年最后更新的一篇综述的更新。
评估对于尚未建立完全经口喂养的稳定早产儿,早期出院并在家中接受管饲喂养支持与完全吸吮喂养建立后延迟出院相比的有效性和安全性。
我们检索了截至2024年5月的Cochrane系统评价数据库、MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL以及试验注册库。我们检查了纳入研究和相关系统评价的参考文献列表。
我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT)和半随机对照试验,这些试验纳入了出生孕周小于37周、出院时无需静脉营养的婴儿。感兴趣的比较是早期出院回家并接受管饲喂养和医疗支持与完全吸吮喂养实现后延迟出院回家。
关键结局指标是达到完全吸吮喂养的时间、测量的最晚时间点的体重增加以及从家庭支持或医院出院时的母乳喂养情况。重要结局指标包括出院前的感染(如呼吸道感染、静脉使用抗生素)、出院后三个月的母乳喂养、出院后12个月内的再住院以及12个月或更晚的综合神经发育结局。
两位综述作者独立筛选和选择试验、提取数据,并使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具RoB 1评估偏倚风险。
我们将二分数据呈现为具有95%置信区间(CI)的汇总风险比(RR),将连续数据呈现为具有95%CI的平均差(MD)。我们使用GRADE方法评估证据的确定性。
本次更新没有新的研究可纳入。与原始综述一样,我们纳入了一项半随机对照试验(88名婴儿,75个家庭),该试验评估了对于预计至少还需要一周特殊护理的、出生孕周小于37周的生理稳定早产儿,早期出院并在家中接受管饲喂养支持(有支持的早期出院)与完全吸吮喂养时延迟出院(延迟出院)相比的情况。该研究于20世纪90年代在瑞典进行。
关键结局指标 未报告达到完全吸吮喂养的时间。有支持的早期出院与延迟出院相比,从试验入组到家庭支持或医院出院期间的每日体重增加可能几乎没有影响或没有影响,但证据非常不确定(MD -1.10 g/天,95%CI -3.94至1.74;88名婴儿)。有支持的早期出院与延迟出院相比,从家庭支持或医院出院时停止任何母乳喂养的风险(RR 0.50,95%CI 0.10至2.58;82名婴儿)和停止完全母乳喂养的风险(RR 1.30,95%CI 0.64至2.62;82名婴儿)可能几乎没有影响或没有影响,但证据非常不确定。重要结局指标 有支持的早期出院与延迟出院相比,从家庭支持或医院出院前可能降低呼吸道感染的风险(RR 0.36,95%CI 0.15至0.83;88名婴儿),并且对静脉使用抗生素可能几乎没有影响或没有影响(RR 0.19,95%CI 0.01至3.87;88名婴儿),但这两个结局的证据都非常不确定。有支持的早期出院与延迟出院相比,从家庭支持或医院出院后三个月停止任何母乳喂养(RR 1.60,95%CI 0.57至4.48;82名婴儿)或完全母乳喂养(RR 1.33,95%CI 0.51至3.50;82名婴儿)的风险可能几乎没有影响或没有影响,但证据非常不确定。有支持的早期出院与延迟出院相比,从家庭支持或医院出院后12个月内再住院的需求可能几乎没有影响或没有影响,但证据非常不确定(RR 1.09,95%CI 0.54至2.18;82名婴儿)。纳入的研究未报告12个月或更晚的综合神经发育结局。证据的确定性 由于存在偏倚风险以及该小型研究效应估计的不精确性,我们将所有结局的证据确定性评为非常低。
目前可得的证据来自20世纪90年代进行的一项小型半随机对照试验,表明与完全吸吮喂养时延迟出院相比,早期出院并在家中接受管饲喂养支持在家庭支持/医院出院前的体重增加、出院时和三个月时的母乳喂养以及出院后12个月内的再住院方面可能几乎没有差异。有支持的早期出院与延迟出院相比可能降低呼吸道感染的风险,但在家庭支持/医院出院前静脉使用抗生素方面几乎没有差异。所有结局的证据都非常不确定。需要高质量的随机对照试验来确定在不同环境和人群中,对于稳定早产儿早期出院并在家中接受支持的益处和危害。两项正在进行的研究(一项已完成但未发表,另一项状态不明)可能有助于填补其中一些空白。
综述作者在本次综述更新工作中未从公共、商业或非营利部门的任何资助机构获得特定资助。
2003年和2015年版本可通过10.1002/14651858.CD003743和10.1002/14651858.CD003743.pub2获取。