Lack of feeding progression in a preterm infant: a case study

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.

When is the use of pacifiers justifiable in the baby-friendly hospital initiative context? A clinician's guide

BACKGROUND

The use of pacifiers is an ancient practice, but often becomes a point of debate when parents and professionals aim to protect and promote breastfeeding as most appropriately for nurturing infants. We discuss the current literature available on pacifier use to enable critical decision-making regarding justifiable use of pacifiers, especially in the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative context, and we provide practical guidelines for clinicians.

DISCUSSION

Suck-swallow-breathe coordination is an important skill that every newborn must acquire for feeding success. In most cases the development and maintenance of the sucking reflex is not a problem, but sometimes the skill may be compromised due to factors such as mother-infant separation or medical conditions. In such situations the use of pacifiers can be considered therapeutic and even provide medical benefits to infants, including reducing the risk of sudden infant death syndrome. The argument opposing pacifier use, however, is based on potential risks such as nipple confusion and early cessation of breastfeeding. The Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding as embedded in the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative initially prohibited the use of pacifiers in a breastfeeding friendly environment to prevent potential associated risks. This article provides a summary of the evidence on the benefits of non-nutritive sucking, risks associated with pacifier use, an identification of the implications regarded as 'justifiable' in the clinical use of pacifiers and a comprehensive discussion to support the recommendations for safe pacifier use in healthy, full-term, and ill and preterm infants. The use of pacifiers is justifiable in certain situations and will support breastfeeding rather than interfere with it. Justifiable conditions have been identified as: low-birth weight and premature infants; infants at risk for hypoglyceamia; infants in need of oral stimulation to develop, maintain and mature the sucking reflex in preterm infants; and the achievement of neurobehavioural organisation. Medical benefits associated with the use of pacifiers include providing comfort, contributing towards neurobehavioural organisation, and reducing the risk of sudden infant death syndrome. Guidelines are presented for assessing and guiding safe pacifier use, for specific design to ensure safety, and for cessation of use to ensure normal childhood development.

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.

Objective assessment of a preterm infant's nutritive sucking from initiation of feeding through hospitalization and discharge

INTRODUCTION

In 2008, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that an infant's ability to feed independently be considered a primary consideration for discharge home. To date, NICU healthcare teams have relied on clinical experience as well as descriptive scales to determine a high risk infant's ability to transition safely from tube feeding to oral feeding. The aim of the current case study was to illustrate the clinical utility of nfant^® Feeding Solution as a noninvasive and objective instrument for determining a neonate's readiness to begin and advance oral feeding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We present the case of AC, a female infant born at 28.6 weeks, with an admitting diagnosis of respiratory distress syndrome. Data collection began when AC was declared medical stable by her attending physician and ready to begin oral feedings. Data was captured during hospitalization and at discharge as well as post discharge for a total of eleven (11) data collections.

RESULTS

Results suggested that the subject progressed in all sucking metrics over time. Data analyses revealed three general amplitude and temporal patterns against the nipple: disorganized, hypervigilant, and then organized. Real time data was used to gain immediate feedback on the impact of interventions on sucking performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful infant feeding is a complex process that requires integration of physiologic function and neurobehavioral ability. To model AC's feeding performance over time, we used nfant Feeding Solution which measures tongue movement against the nipple and streams the data to a mobile tablet so it is displayed in real time. Access to real-time data provides caregivers with objective information that can be used to guide bedside care, help clinicians avoid complications and navigate infants to faster oral feeds and subsequently earlier and safer hospital discharge with lowered expense.