Mucous Fistula Refeeding in Newborns: Why, When, How, and Where? Insights from a Systematic Review

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background/Objectives: Infants with high-output enterostomies often require prolonged parenteral nutrition (PN), increasing risks of infections, liver dysfunction, and impaired growth. Mucous fistula refeeding (MFR) is proposed to enhance intestinal adaptation, weight gain, and distal bowel maturation. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed its effectiveness, safety, and technical aspects. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, studies reporting MFR-related outcomes were included without data or language restrictions. Data sources included PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and UpToDate. Bias risk was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Meta-analysis employed random- and fixed-effects models, with outcomes reported as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Primary outcomes assessed were weight gain, PN duration, and complications and statistical comparisons were made between MFR and non-MFR groups. Results: Seventeen studies involving 631 infants were included; 482 received MFR and 149 did not. MFR started at 31 postoperative days and lasted for 50 days on average, using varied reinfusion methods, catheter types, and fixation strategies. MFR significantly improved weight gain (4.7 vs. 24.2 g/day, p < 0.05) and reduced PN duration (60.3 vs. 95 days, p < 0.05). Hospital and NICU stays were also shorter (160 vs. 263 days, p < 0.05; 122 vs. 200 days, p < 0.05). Cholestasis risk was lower (OR 0.151, 95% CI 0.071–0.319, p < 0.0001), while effects on bilirubin levels were inconsistent. Complications included sepsis (3.5%), intestinal perforation (0.83%), hemorrhage (0.62%), with one MFR-related death (0.22%). Conclusions: Despite MFR benefits neonatal care, its practices remain heterogeneous. Standardized protocols are required to ensure MFR safety and efficacy.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.