Pharyngeal swallowing rhythm in response to oral sensorimotor programs in preterm infants

Effects of Complete Oral Motor Intervention and Nonnutritive Sucking Alone on the Feeding Performance of Premature Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We explore the effect of complete oral motor intervention (OMI) and nonnutritive sucking (NNS) alone on oral feeding in preterm infants through a meta-analysis. We searched the Embased, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled trials up to 8 August 2023, based on established selection criteria. Quality evaluations of the studies were carried out by applying both the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and the Jadad scale. The outcome measures of three clinical indicators included transition time to oral feeding, weight gain, and hospitalization duration. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model to determine the pooled effect sizes, expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) and their corresponding confidence intervals (CIs). Additionally, we undertook a subgroup analysis and meta-regression to investigate any potential moderating factors. Eight randomized controlled trials with 419 participants were selected. Meta-analysis revealed that receiving a complete OMI had significantly reduced transition time compared with those receiving NNS alone in preterm newborns (SMD, -1.186; 95% CI, -2.160 to -0.212, p = 0.017). However, complete OMI had no significant effect on shortened hospitalization duration (SMD, -0.394; 95% CI, -0.979 to 0.192, p = 0.188) and increased weight gain (SMD, 0.346; 95% CI, -0.147 to 0.838, p = 0.169) compared with NNS alone. In brief, a complete OMI should not be replaced by NNS alone. However, we were unable to draw decisive conclusions because of the limitations of our meta-analysis. Future well-designed randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm our conclusion.

Oral stimulation for promoting oral feeding in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Preterm infants (< 37 weeks' post-menstrual age (PMA)) are often delayed in attaining oral feeding. Normal oral feeding is suggested as an important outcome for the timing of discharge from the hospital and can be an early indicator of neuromotor integrity and developmental outcomes. A range of oral stimulation interventions may help infants to develop sucking and oromotor co-ordination, promoting earlier oral feeding and earlier hospital discharge. This is an update of our 2016 review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of oral stimulation interventions for attainment of oral feeding in preterm infants born before 37 weeks' PMA.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were run in March 2022 of the following databases: CENTRAL via CRS Web; MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Searches were limited by date 2016 (the date of the search for the original review) forward. Note: Due to circumstances beyond our control (COVID and staffing shortages at the editorial base of Cochrane Neonatal), publication of this review, planned for mid 2021, was delayed. Thus, although searches were conducted in 2022 and results screened, potentially relevant studies found after September 2020 have been placed in the section, Awaiting Classification, and not incorporated into our analysis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing a defined oral stimulation intervention with no intervention, standard care, sham treatment or non-oral intervention (e.g. body stroking protocols or gavage adjustment protocols) in preterm infants and reporting at least one of the specified outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following the updated search, two review authors screened the titles and abstracts of studies and full-text copies when needed to identify trials for inclusion in the review. The primary outcomes of interest were time (days) to exclusive oral feeding, time (days) spent in NICU, total hospital stay (days), and duration (days) of parenteral nutrition. All review and support authors contributed to independent extraction of data and analysed assigned studies for risk of bias across the five domains of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool. The GRADE system was used to rate the certainty of the evidence. Studies were divided into two groups for comparison: intervention versus standard care and intervention versus other non-oral or sham intervention. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 RCTs (1831 participants). Most trials had methodological weaknesses, particularly in relation to allocation concealment and masking of study personnel. Oral stimulation compared with standard care Following meta-analysis, it is uncertain whether oral stimulation reduces the time to transition to oral feeding compared with standard care (mean difference (MD) -4.07 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.81 to -3.32 days, 6 studies, 292 infants; I2 =85%, very low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias and inconsistency). Time (days) spent in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) was not reported. It is uncertain whether oral stimulation reduces the duration of hospitalisation (MD -4.33, 95% CI -5.97 to -2.68 days, 5 studies, 249 infants; i2 =68%, very low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias and inconsistency). Duration (days) of parenteral nutrition was not reported. Oral stimulation compared with non-oral intervention Following meta-analysis, it is uncertain whether oral stimulation reduces the time to transition to exclusive oral feeding compared with a non-oral intervention (MD -7.17, 95% CI -8.04 to -6.29 days, 10 studies, 574 infants; I2 =80%, very low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias, inconsistency and precision). Time (days) spent in the NICU was not reported. Oral stimulation may reduce the duration of hospitalisation (MD -6.15, 95% CI -8.63 to -3.66 days, 10 studies, 591 infants; I2 =0%, low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias). Oral stimulation may have little or no effect on the duration (days) of parenteral nutrition exposure (MD -2.85, 95% CI -6.13 to 0.42, 3 studies, 268 infants; very low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There remains uncertainty about the effects of oral stimulation (versus either standard care or a non-oral intervention) on transition times to oral feeding, duration of intensive care stay, hospital stay, or exposure to parenteral nutrition for preterm infants. Although we identified 28 eligible trials in this review, only 18 provided data for meta-analyses. Methodological weaknesses, particularly in relation to allocation concealment and masking of study personnel and caregivers, inconsistency between trials in effect size estimates (heterogeneity), and imprecision of pooled estimates were the main reasons for assessing the evidence as low or very low certainty. More well-designed trials of oral stimulation interventions for preterm infants are warranted. Such trials should attempt to mask caregivers to treatment when possible, paying particular attention to blinding of outcome assessors. There are currently 32 ongoing trials. Outcome measures that reflect improvements in oral motor skill development as well as longer term outcome measures beyond six months of age need to be defined and used by researchers to capture the full impact of these interventions.

The effects of swallowing exercise and non-nutritive sucking exercise on oral feeding readiness in preterm infants: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Preterm infants demonstrate problems with pharyngeal swallowing in addition to sucking problems. Oral motor intervention and nonnutritive sucking (NNS) were introduced for promoting oral feeding skills in preterm infants. NNS cannot cover all the components of oral feeding. In another hand, the swallowing exercise (SE) can accelerate the attainment of independent oral feeding in the preterm infants. The current study sought to examine if a combined program of NNS and SE compared with a program that only involves NNS would be more effective on oral feeding readiness of premature infants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This randomized controlled trial was conducted in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). 45 preterm infants were recruited in three groups. In the group I, infants were provided with NNS twice a day. The group II received a program that involved 15 min of NNS and 15 min of SE, daily. Both interventions were provided 10 days during two consecutive weeks. The group III, control group, just received the routine NICU care. All infants were assessed by functional oral feeding outcome measures including postmenstrual age (PMA) at the start of oral feeding, PMA at full oral feeding, transition time (days from start to full oral feeding), PMA at discharge time and also the infant's dependency on tube-feeding at discharge time after interventions. Also, all infants were assessed via Preterm Oral Feeding Readiness Scale (POFRAS) before and after intervention.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the PMA mean at start of oral-feeding (P = 0.29), full oral-feeding (P = 0.13), discharge time (P = 0.45) and the mean of transition time (P = 0.14). Compared to the control group, more infants in the group II were discharged without tube-feeding (P = 0.01). The mean of POFRAS was significantly higher in both groups I and II compared to the group III (P = 0.02 and P = 0.01, respectively). This score was, however, not statistically different between the groups I and II (P = 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Both studied interventions were superior to routine NICU care in enhancing the oral feeding readiness of preterm infants based on the POFRAS score. The studied combined program of NNS and SE, and not NNS program, could significantly increase the number of discharged infants without tube-feeding compared to control group.

Oral stimulation for promoting oral feeding in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Preterm infants (< 37 weeks' postmenstrual age) are often delayed in attaining oral feeding. Normal oral feeding is suggested as an important outcome for the timing of discharge from the hospital and can be an early indicator of neuromotor integrity and developmental outcomes. A range of oral stimulation interventions may help infants to develop sucking and oromotor co-ordination, promoting earlier oral feeding and earlier hospital discharge.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of oral stimulation interventions for attainment of oral feeding in preterm infants born before 37 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA).To conduct subgroup analyses for the following prespecified subgroups.• Extremely preterm infants born at < 28 weeks' PMA.• Very preterm infants born from 28 to < 32 weeks' PMA.• Infants breast-fed exclusively.• Infants bottle-fed exclusively.• Infants who were both breast-fed and bottle-fed.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 25 February 2016), Embase (1980 to 25 February 2016) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 25 February 2016). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing a defined oral stimulation intervention with no intervention, standard care, sham treatment or non-oral intervention in preterm infants and reporting at least one of the specified outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author searched the databases and identified studies for screening. Two review authors screened the abstracts of these studies and full-text copies when needed to identify trials for inclusion in the review. All review authors independently extracted the data and analysed each study for risk of bias across the five domains of bias. All review authors discussed and analysed the data and used the GRADE system to rate the quality of the evidence. Review authors divided studies into two groups for comparison: intervention versus standard care and intervention versus other non-oral or sham intervention. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 19 randomised trials with a total of 823 participants. Almost all included trials had several methodological weaknesses. Meta-analysis showed that oral stimulation reduced the time to transition to oral feeding compared with standard care (mean difference (MD) -4.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.56 to -4.06 days) and compared with another non-oral intervention (MD -9.01, 95% CI -10.30 to -7.71 days), as well as the duration of initial hospitalisation compared with standard care (MD -5.26, 95% CI -7.34 to -3.19 days) and compared with another non-oral intervention (MD -9.01, 95% CI -10.30 to -7.71 days).Investigators reported shorter duration of parenteral nutrition for infants compared with standard care (MD -5.30, 95% CI -9.73 to -0.87 days) and compared with another non-oral intervention (MD -8.70, 95% CI -15.46 to -1.94 days). They could identify no effect on breast-feeding outcomes nor on weight gain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although the included studies suggest that oral stimulation shortens hospital stay, days to exclusive oral feeding and duration of parenteral nutrition, one must interpret results of these studies with caution, as risk of bias and poor methodological quality are high overall. Well-designed trials of oral stimulation interventions for preterm infants are warranted. Such trials should use reliable methods of randomisation while concealing treatment allocation, blinding caregivers to treatment when possible and paying particular attention to blinding of outcome assessors.