Providing very low‐birth‐weight infants with fast enteral feeding reduced how long they needed a central venous catheter
Rattachement africain : fr. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
AIM: To determine the impact of the protocol change from slow to fast enteral feeding progression on duration of central venous catheter placement, and the rates of late-onset sepsis and necrotising enterocolitis. METHODS: We compared the evolution of all very low-birth-weight infants admitted on their first postnatal day in neonatal intensive care unit during a 12-month period, before (2021 Cohort) and after (2022 Cohort) implementation of a new feeding protocol. Linear regression model was used to adjust for confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 343 VLBW infants were included (median gestational age ± SD 28.3 ± 1.7 weeks; median birth weight ± SD 980 ± 300 g). Median initial duration of central venous catheter was 5 days in 2022 cohort compared with 9 days in 2021 cohort (unadjusted p = 0.006, adjusted p = 0.001). Median time to achieve full enteral feeding was 8 days versus 12 days, p < 0.001, with no significant difference in late-onset sepsis or necrotising enterocolitis rates. CONCLUSION: The change from slow to fast enteral feeding progression for very low-birth-weight infants significantly decreased the central venous catheter duration with no adverse outcomes. This is consistent with recent randomised study results and supports the safe implementation in neonatal intensive care units.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Providing very low‐birth‐weight infants with fast enteral feeding reduced how long they needed a central venous catheter
- Date Crossref
- 04/10/2024
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.