2 Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition XX(X)Table 1. Nutrition Support Guideline Recommendations for Neonatal Patients at Risk for Necrotizing EnterocolitisQuestion Recommendation GradeWhen and how should feeds be started in We suggest that minimal enteral nutrition should be initiated Weak infants at high risk for NEC? within the first 2 days of life and advanced by 30 mL/kg/d in infants ≥1000 g.Does the provision of mother’s milk reduce We suggest the exclusive use of mother’s milk rather than bovine- Weak the risk of developing NEC relative to based products or formula in infants at risk for NEC. bovine-based products or formula?Do probiotics reduce the risk of developing There are insufficient data to recommend the use of probiotics in Further research NEC? infants at risk for NEC. neededDo certain nutrients either prevent or We do not recommend glutamine supplementation for infants at Strong predispose to the development of NEC? risk for NEC. There is insufficient evidence at this time to recommend arginine Further research and/or long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation needed for infants at risk for NEC.When should feeds be reintroduced to infants There are insufficient data to make a recommendation regarding Further research with NEC? time to reintroduce feedings to infants after NEC. neededAbbreviation: NEC, necrotizing enterocolitis.support in all healthcare settings. These Clinical Guidelines for the body of evidence and for the recommendation. The pro-were developed under the guidance of the A.S.P.E.N. Board of cedures listed below were adopted from the GRADE process forDirectors. Promotion of safe and effective patient care by use with A.S.P.E.N. Clinical Guidelines with consideration ofnutrition support practitioners is a critical role of the A.S.P.E.N. the levels of review (by internal and external content reviewers,organization. The A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors has been pub- by the A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors).lishing Clinical Guidelines since 1986.12-23 The A.S.P.E.N. A rigorous literature search is undertaken to locate clinicalClinical Guidelines editorial board evaluates in an ongoing outcomes associated with practice decisions in the populationprocess when individual Clinical Guidelines should be of interest. Each pertinent paper is appraised for evidence qual-updated. ity according to research quality (randomization, blinding, These A.S.P.E.N. Clinical Guidelines are based upon gen- attrition, sample size, and risk of bias for clinical trials24 anderal conclusions of health professionals who, in developing prospective vs retrospective observation, sample size, andsuch guidelines, have balanced potential benefits to be derived potential bias for observational studies) and placed into an evi-from a particular mode of medical therapy against certain risks dence table. A second table is used to provide an overview ofinherent with such therapy. However, the professional judg- the strength of the available evidence according to the clinicalment of the attending health professional is the primary com- outcomes, in order to support a consensus decision regardingponent of quality medical care. Because guidelines cannot the guideline recommendation. If the evidence quality is high,account for every variation in circumstances, the practitioner it is unlikely that further research will change our confidencemust always exercise professional judgment in their applica- in the estimate of effect. With moderate grade evidence, furthertion. These Clinical Guidelines are intended to supplement, but research is likely to modify the confidence in the effect esti-not replace, professional training and judgment. mate and may change the estimate. With low grade evidence, A.S.P.E.N. has adopted concepts of the Grading of further research is very likely to change the estimate, and withRecommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation very low evidence quality, the estimate of the effect is very(GRADE) working group (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) uncertain. A clinical recommendation is then developed byfor development of its clinical guidelines. The GRADE working consensus of the Clinical Guidelines authors, based on the bestgroup combined the efforts of evidence analysis methodologists available evidence. The risks and benefits to the patient areand clinical guidelines developers from diverse backgrounds weighed in light of the available evidence. Conditional lan-and health organizations to develop an evaluation system that guage is used for weak recommendations. For further detailswould provide a transparent process for evaluating the best on the A.S.P.E.N. application of GRADE, see the “Clinicalavailable evidence and integration of the evidence with clinical Guidelines for the Use of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition inknowledge and consideration of patient priorities. These proce- Adult and Pediatric Patients: Applying the GRADE System todures provide added transparency by developing separate grades Development of A.S.P.E.N. Clinical Guidelines.”24 Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012
A.S.P.E.N. Clinical Guidelines / Fallon et al 3 For the current Clinical Guideline, the search term necrotiz- instability can impact feeding practices, and thus, discretioning enterocolitis was used in PubMed with inclusion criteria should be employed under these circumstances. Last, oneincluding infants (birth to 23 months); humans; clinical trial; RCT26 evaluated the effect of stable (20 mL/kg/d) vs advancingrandomized controlled trial; case reports; clinical trial: phase I, (20 mL/kg/d to goal 140 mL/kg/d) feeding volumes for aphase II, phase III, phase IV; comparative study; controlled 10-day period following the initiation of enteral nutrition andclinical trial; guideline; journal article; multicenter study; found a significantly higher incidence of NEC in infants fedEnglish language; and published within the last 10 years. The advancing volumes. Due to the high incidence of NEC in thesearch was conducted on April 21, 2011. The questions are advancing group (10% vs 1.4%), the study was prematurely ter-summarized in Table 1. For questions 1 and 3, an additional minated. It is important to recognize that a major difference inlimitation of randomized controlled trial was implemented due this study compared with the previous RCTs29-31 is that enteralto the plethora of literature on these topics. For questions 2, 4, nutrition was initiated later in life, the timing of which was atand 5, pertinent literature within the past 10 years, without the discretion of the neonatologist. Specifically, the earliest agerestriction to evidence type, was included. A total of 1335 of feed initiation was 4 days with a median age of 9.5 days inabstracts were reviewed, of which 24 papers met the inclusion infants who developed NEC and 11 days for infants in thecriteria of the Clinical Guidelines and were included. advancing group who developed NEC. This is a potentially important confounding variable, making the interpretation of these study results complicated and to be taken with caution.Practice Guidelines and Rationales Although the majority of these aforementioned studies have Question 1: When and how should feeds be started in recommended larger, multicentered prospective trials to fur-infants at high risk for NEC (Tables 2 and 3)? ther evaluate questions on enteral nutrition initiation and Recommendation: We suggest that minimal enteral advancement, based on the available data, early MEF withinnutrition be initiated within the first 2 days of life and the first 2 days of life and advancement at 30 mL/kg/d inadvanced by 30 mL/kg/d in infants ≥1000 g. infants ≥1000 g can be suggested. Grade: Weak Rationale: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) Question 2: Does the provision of mother’s milk reducehave been conducted to gain insight into the optimal time of the risk of developing NEC relative to bovine-based prod-initiation and rate of advancement of enteral nutrition in ucts or formula (Tables 4 and 5)?infants at risk for NEC. Of the studies reviewed, 2 of 1025,26 Recommendation: We suggest the exclusive use ofevaluated NEC (Bell’s stage ≥II) as the primary outcome, mother’s milk rather than bovine-based products or formulawhereas the remaining studies predominantly evaluated feed- in infants at risk for NECing tolerance and/or time to achievement of full enteral nutri- Grade: Weaktion with NEC as a secondary outcome measure. With regard Rationale: The type of enteral nutrition administered toto the timing of initiation of EN, one RCT25 evaluated the an infant at risk for NEC is important. Several studies haveeffect of early (≤5 days; median 2 days) vs delayed (≥6 days; focused on whether the administration of human milk results inmedian 7 days) initiation of minimal enteral feeding (MEF) in a reduction in the incidence of NEC compared with formulainfants with an age-adjusted birth weight (BW) ≤10th percen- feeding. These studies used mother’s milk (MM) with thetile and intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). No difference exception of one,32 which fed infants pasteurized donor milkin the incidence of NEC between groups was found, although (DM) if MM was unavailable. Exclusive feeding with MM isit was concluded that a larger sample size would be needed to associated with a decreased risk of NEC as compared with pre-adequately evaluate for an effect. Two RCTs27,28 evaluated the term formula (PF).33 As a substitute for MM, pasteurized DMeffect of MEF vs nil per os (NPO) status within the first week has not been found to have any protective effect over PF withof life with feeds beginning at a median age of 2 days in regard to the incidence of NEC,34 but feeding with MM and/or<1000-g and <2000-g infants, respectively, and found no sig- DM has been found to be associated with a decreased risk ofnificant differences in the incidence of NEC. For these studies, NEC as compared with a combination of MM and/or DM andthe quantity associated with MEF was ≤12 mL/kg/d. bovine milk (BOV)–based products.32 It is important to note Three RCTs29-31 evaluated the effect of slow (15–20 mL/ that the source of enteral nutrition was explicitly evaluated;kg/d) vs rapid (30 mL/kg/d) enteral nutrition advancement to a supplementation with milk fortifier was not evaluated. Withgoal rate of between 150 and 180 mL/kg/d and found that rapid respect to the quantity of MM administered, one prospectiveadvancement was well tolerated by infants with an average BW cohort study35 found enteral nutrition with ≥50% MM within1000–2000 g without an increased incidence of NEC. In these the first 14 days was associated with a 6-fold decreased risk ofstudies, enteral nutrition was initiated at a median age of 6 NEC. An observational study36 found the amount of daily MMhours29 or 2 days.30,31 However, these studies were not powered (1 to ≥50 mL/kg/d) fed through week 4 of life had no effect onto detect statistically significant differences in the incidence of the incidence of NEC. Based on the available data, exclusivelyNEC. In addition, it is important to note that hemodynamic fed MM has been shown to be beneficial in the prevention of Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012
4 Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition XX(X)NEC and is therefore recommended over formula feeding. It is others may actually predispose infants to NEC. Withunclear whether the amount and/or timing of MM administered respect to amino acids (AA), recent literature has focused onhave an effect on the incidence of NEC, and therefore no rec- the effect of arginine and glutamine supplementation on theommendation regarding the optimal dose of MM can be made. incidence of NEC. The plasma arginine and asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA, a metabolic by-product of pro- Question 3: Do probiotics reduce the risk of developing tein modification processes) concentrations as well as theNEC (Tables 6 and 7)? arginine:ADMA ratio have been found to be lower in prema- Recommendation: There are insufficient data to recom- ture infants with NEC, which have subsequently been shownmend the use of probiotics in infants at risk for NEC. to be associated with an increased mortality.44 Although Grade: Further research needed there is not an abundance of literature, one RCT45 focuses on Rationale: There has been much debate over the admin- the effect of prophylactic L-arginine supplementation (1.5istration of oral probiotics in the prevention of NEC. Seven mmol/kg/d), the results of which suggest that supplementa-RCTs evaluating the use of prophylactic probiotics in preterm tion may be effective in reducing the overall incidence ofand very low birth weight (VLBW) infants met inclusion crite- NEC. Of note, the results of this study must be taken withria for these guidelines. NEC, defined as Bell’s stage ≥II, was caution as the sample size was small and results demon-the primary end point in 6 of 7 studies.37-42 The type of bacte- strated no difference in the reduction of Bell’s stage ≥II.ria, dosage, frequency, and duration of treatment varied widely Glutamine supplementation has additionally been evaluatedacross studies. One study evaluated the effect of a probiotic in one large, well-conducted RCT, and no statistically sig-with MM vs MM alone,40 whereas 2 studies evaluated the nificant difference in the incidence of NEC between supple-effect of a probiotic with human milk (HM; MM or DM) vs mented and nonsupplemented groups was found.46 ApartHM alone,37,42 and 3 studies evaluated the effect of a probiotic from individual amino acid supplementation, the administra-with MM or formula vs MM or formula alone.39,41,43 One tion of AA in parenteral nutrition (PN) has additionally beenstudy38 specifically compared the effect of killed probiotic studied. In a comparative pre- and postintervention study,47(KP) vs living probiotic (LP) Lactobacillus acidophilus on the early AA administration was associated with an increasedincidence of NEC and found no difference in the incidence of incidence of surgical NEC in VLBW infants. Last, fatty acidNEC between groups; LP and KP were both found to be pre- supplementation was evaluated in one RCT48; this studyventative against NEC in comparison to a placebo group, with demonstrated a slightly increased incidence of NEC (5.3%KP retaining similar benefits to live bacteria with no adverse vs 2%) in long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid (LCPUFA)–effect. All 7 RCTs demonstrated a lower incidence of NEC in supplemented (fat mixture containing linoleic, α-linolenic,the group of infants who received probiotics as compared with and γ-linolenic acids) compared with nonsupplementedthose who did not receive probiotics, although 1 of 7 studies43 infants, although the difference between groups was not sta-did not demonstrate statistical significance between groups. tistically significant. Based on the aforementioned studies,Although the implementation of a “probiotic” resulted in a there is limited research on AA/fatty acid administration andlower incidence of NEC across studies, it is important to supplementation, and it remains an important area for futureemphasize that these studies used different types of probiotics, research. However, based on the available literature, argi-with some administering a combination of probiotics.37,39-42 It nine supplementation may be effective, although the evi-is additionally important to mention that there is no Food and dence is underpowered, whereas glutamine supplementationDrug Administration (FDA) approval to date for routine use of does not appear to prevent NEC, and LCPUFA supplementa-these products. Further studies are necessary to determine the tion may predispose infants to NEC. Therefore, althoughmost effective type(s) of probiotic, dosage, and duration of glutamine supplementation is not recommended for infantstreatment; thus, no recommendation on the use of probiotics in at risk for NEC, there is insufficient evidence to recommendinfants at risk for NEC can be made at this time. arginine and/or LCPUFA supplementation at this time. Question 4: Do certain nutrients either prevent or predis- Question 5: When should feeds be reintroduced topose to the development of NEC (Tables 8 and 9)? infants with NEC (Tables 10 and 11)? Recommendation: We do not recommend glutamine Recommendation: There are insufficient data to make asupplementation for infants at risk for NEC. There is insuf- recommendation regarding time to reintroduce feedings toficient evidence at this time to recommend arginine and/or infants after NEC.long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation for Grade: Further research neededinfants at risk for NEC. Rationale: There is no standard recommendation as to Grade: Strong (glutamine); further research needed when enteral nutrition should be reinitiated after a defini-(arginine, long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids) tive diagnosis of NEC. Historically, it has been suggested that Rationale: A review of the literature suggests that cer- a period of fasting from 10 days to 3 weeks should be observedtain nutrients may reduce the incidence of NEC, whereas prior to the reintroduction of enteral nutrition for an infant with Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012
A.S.P.E.N. Clinical Guidelines / Fallon et al 5NEC; however, these recommendations are not founded on catheter-related sepsis and post-NEC intestinal stricture for-scientific data. It is without question that practices vary greatly mation as well as shorter time to full enteral nutrition andamong institutions and physicians. It has been suggested that shorter hospitalization. It is important to note that both studiesprolonged fasting may actually be detrimental due to the have serious limitations given their retrospective nature, andpotential need for prolonged central venous access and PN, both are underpowered to assess the impact of early enteraland has prompted some institutions to introduce early feeding nutrition on NEC recurrence, a very important outcome vari-regimens in infants with NEC. To date, the literature on the able. Although these studies suggest that prolonged fastingimpact of early feeding regimens is limited. In fact, only 2 ret- periods traditionally recommended for infants with NEC mayrospective reviews met the inclusion criteria for these guide- not be necessary, further prospective and randomized con-lines. Both of these studies suggest that, for infants with trolled trials are necessary before recommendations canBell’s stage II NEC, early feeding regimens may actually have be made as to when feeds should be reintroduced in infantspotential beneficial effects, including a reduced incidence of with NEC. (Text continues on p. 17.) Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012
Table 2. Evidence Table Question 1: When and how should feeds be started in infants at high risk for NEC? 6 Study Design, Author, Year Quality Population, Setting, N Study Objective Results Comments Krishnamurthy,29 RCT Preterm infants <34 weeks To evaluate the effect of slow (20 Incidence of NEC: 2% Rapid enteral nutrition advancement 2010 Nonblinded to GA with BW 1000–1499 mL/kg/d) vs rapid (30 mL/kg/d) (1/50) in the slow- of 30 mL/kg/d is well tolerated intervention g, born 2/2008 to 9/2008, enteral nutrition advancement feeding advancement without an increased incidence of (investigators) and followed until they had by nasogastric bolus on the time group and 4% (2/50) NEC in stable preterm neonates Rate of attrition: regained BW or developed to achievement of full enteral in the rapid-feeding weighing 1000–1499 g. 10/100 NEC nutrition (180 mL/kg/d) advancement group (P There was no statistically significant Tertiary care hospital (India) Primary outcome: Time to attainment = 1.0) difference in mortality between N = 100 (n = 50/group) of full enteral nutrition groups. Secondary outcome: Incidence The study was not powered to detect of feeding intolerance, NEC clinical or statistical differences in (Bell’s stage ≥IIA), mortality, the incidence of NEC as NEC was apnea, duration of hospital stay/ not the primary outcome. intravenous fluids, weight gain, and nosocomial sepsis Karagianni,25 RCT Preterm infants 27–34 weeks To examine the effect of early Incidence of NEC: 15% Early MEF for preterm infants 2010 Nonblinded GA with age-adjusted BW (≤5 days) vs delayed (≥6 days) (6/40) in the early MEF with IUGR and abnormal Pilot study ≤10th percentile (IUGR), initiation of MEF on the incidence group and 9.8% (4/41) antenatal Doppler results does not Rate of attrition: Apgar score >5, and arterial of NEC and feeding intolerance in the delayed MEF significantly impact the incidence 3/84 cord blood pH ≥7.0 with Primary outcomes: Incidence of group (RR = 1.54 early of NEC. abnormal antenatal Doppler NEC (Bell’s stage ≥II) and feeding MEF; 95% CI 0.469– Mortality was not significantly results, admitted between intolerance 5.043) different between groups (P = 5/2004 and 5/2008 Secondary outcome: Mortality .512). Level III NICU (Greece)Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012 N = 84 (n = 42/group) Mosqueda,27 RCT ELBW infants (BW ≤1000 g), To evaluate the efficacy of early Incidence of NEC: 9% There was no difference in the 2008 Nonblinded admitted between 1/2001 MEF (12 mL/kg/d) on overall (3/33) in the MEF group incidence of NEC between MEF Pilot study and 8/2003. Infants were feeding tolerance in infants from and 14% (4/28) in the and NPO groups. Rate of attrition: separated into MEF and DOL 2–7 NPO group (P = .53) Based on the incidence of NEC 23/84 NPO groups from DOL Primary outcome: Feeding tolerance Mortality was 17% in the and mortality in this study, a 2–7. On DOL 8, all infants Secondary outcomes: Incidence MEF group and 26% in sample size of 191 infants per received bolus feedings of NEC, sepsis, mortality, the NPO group (P = .34); group would be needed for an (20 mL/kg/d) and were intraventricular hemorrhage, length infants who expired were appropriately powered study. followed until 1 week after of hospital stay excluded from the analysis. achievement of full enteral nutrition (150 mL/kg/d). Single-center NICU (Illinois, USA) N = 84 (n = 41 MEF group, n = 43 NPO group) (continued)
Table 2. (continued) Study Design, Author, Year Quality Population, Setting, N Study Objective Results Comments Caple,30 2004 RCT Infants ≤35 week GA To determine whether infants fed Incidence of NEC: 4.2% Advancement of feeds at 30 mL/ Nonblinded with BW 1000–2000 g, initially and advanced at 30 mL/ (3/72) in the rapid- kg/d is as safe as 20 mL/kg/d with Rate of attrition: admitted between 1994 and kg/d achieve full enteral nutrition advancement group and a comparable incidence of NEC 5/160 1995, and followed until sooner than infants fed initially and 2.4% (2/83) in the slow- between groups. Intention-to- hospital discharge or the advanced at 20 mL/kg/d (goal 150 advancement group; P No information on mortality reported treat analysis development of NEC mL/kg/d) value not given Authors recommend a large, Single-center level II and III Primary outcome: Time to 3.2% overall incidence of multicenter prospective trial to NICU at community-based achievement of full enteral NEC (RR, 1.73; 95% evaluate ways of optimizing county hospital (Texas, nutrition CI, 0.30–10.06; P = .66) enteral nutrition without increasing USA) Secondary outcomes: Incidence of for infants enrolled in morbidity. N = 155 (n = 72 rapid group, NEC (Bell’s stage ≥II) and feeding study; 4.1% in preterm n = 83 slow group) complications, length of hospital infants (1000–2000 g) stay, duration of intravenous fluid, during the same period weight gain not enrolled in the study van Elburg,28 RCT Preterm infants <37 weeks To evaluate the effect of MEF (12 × Incidence of NEC: 0% MEF of preterm infants with IUGR 2004 Nonblinded GA with BW <2000 g 0.5 mL daily if BW <1000 g or 12 (0/20) in the MEF and had no effect on the development Rate of attrition: and BW for GA <10th × 1 mL daily if BW >1000 g) on 4.5% (1/22) in the NPO of NEC. 14/56 percentile (IUGR), admitted intestinal permeability and feeding group (P = .76) No significant difference in mortality from 1/1998 to 11/2000, tolerance between groups enrolled within 48 hours Primary outcome: Functional However, a larger sample size of birth and followed for integrity of the small bowel is needed to draw definitive 5 days Secondary outcomes: Feeding conclusions on the effect of MEF Single-center NICU in tolerance, growth, and incidence of on measures of clinical outcome. tertiary care referral center NEC (Bell’s stage ≥II)Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012 (Netherlands) N = 56 (n = 28 MEF group, n = 28 NPO group) Salhotra,31 2004 RCT Infants with BW <1250 g To evaluate the tolerance of rapid (30 Incidence of NEC: 7.4% Stable VLBW infants appear to Nonblinded subject to gastrointestinal mL/kg/d) vs slow (15 mL/kg/d) (2/27) in the rapid- tolerate rapid advancements Rate of attrition: priming (5 mL/kg/d) via advancement of enteral nutrition to advancement group and of enteral nutrition without an 19/53 intermittent nasogastric goal of 180 mL/kg/d 0% (0/26) in the slow- increased risk of NEC. tube bolus, on DOL Primary outcome: Time to achieve advancement group; no There was no significant difference 1–2, then randomized at 48 full enteral nutrition P value given in mortality between groups. hours of life Secondary outcomes: Incidence of NEC-related mortality: Of note, of infants randomized to Tertiary-level teaching NEC (Bell’s stage ≥II) and apnea There were 2 cases of the fast group, 74% completed the hospital (India) NEC (DOL 6 and 8), trial vs 53.8% in the slow group. N = 53 (n = 27 fast group, n = both in the fast group, The small sample size precludes 7 26 slow group) and those infants any firm conclusion on the risk of died with associated NEC. septicemia. (continued)
Table 2. (continued) Study Design, 8 Author, Year Quality Population, Setting, N Study Objective Results Comments Berseth,26 2003 RCT Infants <32 weeks appropriate To compare the risks and benefits Incidence of NEC: 10% Higher risk for NEC in preterm Nonblinded for GA, with feeds begun of enteral nutrition advancement (7/70) in the advancing infants when fed advancing Rate of attrition: at the discretion of the (20 mL/kg/d to goal 140 mL/kg/d) group and 1.4% (1/71) feeding volumes compared with 3/144 neonatologist, and admitted compared with stable feeding in the control group (P low/stable feeding volumes over a between 1/1996 and 1/2000 volumes (20 mL/kg/d) over a 10- = .03) 10-day period Single-center NICU (Texas, day period The study was closed Mortality was similar in both groups USA) Primary outcome: Incidence of NEC early due to the high (4.2% vs 4.3%, P = .97). N = 141 (n = 70 advancing (Bell’s stage ≥II) incidence of NEC in the Mean age of enteral nutrition group, n = 71 control Secondary outcomes: Maturation advancing group. initiation was 13 days for the 7 group) of intestinal motor patterns, time infants in the advancing group to reach full enteral nutrition, who developed NEC. The 1 incidence of late sepsis infant in the control group who developed NEC was fed at age 4 days. The age at feed initiation was only given for infants who developed NEC. Authors conclude that minimal feeding volumes should be evaluated until future trials further assess the safety of advancing feeding volumes. BW, birth weight; CI, confidence interval; DOL, day of life; ELBW, extremely low birth weight; GA, gestational age; IUGR, intrauterine growth restriction; MEF, minimal enteral feeding; NEC, necrotizing enterocolitis; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; NPO, nil per os; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RR, relative risk; VLBW, very low birth weight.Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012 Table 3. GRADE Table Question 1: When and how should feeds be started in infants at high risk for NEC? Overall GRADE of Evidence for Recommendation Comparison Outcome Quantity, Type Evidence Findings Outcome GRADE Rapid vs slow enteral nutrition advancement29-31 Incidence of NEC 3 RCTs No difference Low Weak 25 Early vs delayed minimal enteral feeding Incidence of NEC 1 RCT No difference Low Weak 27,28 Minimal enteral feeding vs nil per os Incidence of NEC 2 RCTs No difference Low Weak Advancing vs low/stable feeding volume26 Incidence of NEC 1 RCT Higher Low Weak NEC, necrotizing enterocolitis; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Table 4. Evidence Table Question 2: Does the provision of mother’s milk reduce the risk of developing NEC relative to bovine-based products or formula? Author, Year Study Design, Quality Population, Setting, N Study Objective Results Comments 32 Sullivan, RCT Premature infants with BW To evaluate the health benefits of Incidence of NEC: 7% (5/71) in the The rates of NEC and NEC 2010 Nonblinded 500–1250 g, fed HM (MM an exclusively HM-based diet HM40 group, 4.5% (3/67) in the requiring surgery were Rate of attrition: 31/207 and/or DM) within the (MM and/or DM) compared HM100 group, and 16% (11/69) in markedly lower in the first 21 days after birth, with a diet of both human and the BOV group (P = .05 between groups fed exclusively followed until 91 days old, BOV-based products 3 groups) HM (MM and/or DM) hospital discharge, or the Primary outcome: Fewer cases of NEC in the HM40 compared with BOV- achievement of 50% oral PN duration and HM100 groups, with P = .09 based products. feeds (goal 160 mL/kg/d) Secondary outcomes: Incidence between HM40 and BOV groups, 50% reduction in the Multicenter—12 NICUs (11 of NEC (Bell’s stage ≥II), late- P = 0.04 between HM100 and incidence of NEC and USA; 1 Austria) onset sepsis, growth, morbidity BOV, and P = .02 between HM almost 90% reduction in Total N = 207 (n = 71, 40 (40+100) and BOV groups the incidence of surgical mL/kg/d, HM40 group; For NEC cases requiring surgical NEC in infants fed (HM40 mL/kg/d); intervention, P = .03 between exclusive HM (MM and/ n = 67, 100 mL/kg/d, the HM40 and HM100 groups or DM) vs BOV-based HM100 group; (HM100 independently compared with the products mL/kg/d); n = 69, bovine BOV group and P = .007 for HM Using exclusively HM-based milk, BOV group) (100+40) compared with the BOV diet, NNT to prevent 1 group case of NEC is 10 and to Exclusive HM diet (OR 0.23, 95% prevent 1 case of surgical CI 0.08-0.66, P=0.007) NEC or death is 8. Schanler,34 RCT Premature infants <30 weeks To determine the incidence of NEC Incidence of NEC: 6% (4/70) in the As a substitute for MM, 2005 Blinded to group GA, stratified by GA and in infants receiving pasteurized MM group, 6% (5/78) in the DM pasteurized DM offered assignment receipt of prenatal steroids, DM vs PF as a substitute for group, and 11% (10/88) in the PF no observed short-term (caregivers) admitted between 8/1997 MM to achieve goal 160 mL/ group (P = .39 between MM and advantage over PF for Rate of attrition: 8/243 and 7/2001, and followed kg/d DM+PF and P = .27 between DM feeding premature infants.Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012 from birth to 90 days of Primary outcomes: and PF) There was no significant age or hospital discharge Incidence of NEC (Bell’s stage difference in mortality Nurseries at Texas Children’s ≥II) and late-onset sepsis between the groups. Hospital (Texas) Secondary outcomes: Duration N = 243 (n = 70 MM only, n of hospitalization, growth, = 81 DM, n = 92 PF) mortality Sisk,35 2007 OBS Infants with BW 700–1500 To determine if a high proportion Incidence of NEC: 3.2% (5/156) in Enteral nutrition containing Prospective cohort study g, born from 5/2001 to of MM (HMM, ≥50% of enteral the HMM group and 10.6% (5/46) ≥50% MM within the Rate of attrition: 3/202 8/2003, and followed nutrition) protects against in the LMM group (OR, 0.17; first 14 days after birth Analysis of covariance during DOL 1–14. Infants the development of NEC as 95% CI, 0.04–0.68; P = .01 after is associated with a and logistic regression were started on PN 1–2 compared with a low proportion adjustment for GA) significant (6-fold) analysis days after birth if GA <30 of MM (LMM, <50% of enteral The overall incidence of NEC decreased risk of NEC. weeks. Goal feeds were nutrition) within the first 14 days negatively correlated with the No difference in the 100–120 mL/kg/d. of life proportion of MM fed in the first incidence of surgical NEC 14 days of life (OR, 0.62; CI, or mortality between 9 0.51–0.77; P = .02) after adjustment groups for GA. (continued)
10 Table 4. (continued) Author, Year Study Design, Quality Population, Setting, N Study Objective Results Comments Study supported Level III obstetric referral Primary outcome: For every 25% increase in MM by International center for women (North Incidence of NEC (Bell’s stage proportion, the odds of NEC Lactation Consultant Carolina, USA) ≥II) decreased by 38%. Association, N = 202 (n = 156 HMM, n = Secondary outcomes: Feeding University of 46 LMM) tolerance, late-onset sepsis, North Carolina chronic lung disease, retinopathy (Greensboro), of prematurity and Wake Forest University School of Medicine Furman,36 OBS Infants <33 weeks GA with To evaluate the dose effect of MM Incidence of NEC: 8% (3/40) group The amount of MM 2003 Prospective BW 600–1499 g, admitted compared with PF on neonatal I (used as basis of comparison administered does not Rate of attrition: not between 1/1997 and morbidity against groups II–IV), 7% (2/29) affect the incidence of specified 2/1999, followed through Primary outcome: Neonatal group II (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, NEC in VLBW infants. Regression analysis week 4 of life morbidity 0.8–12.13), 11% (2/18) group III Supported by NIH Urban tertiary care NICU Secondary outcomes: Incidence (OR, 1.99; CI, 0.14–21.03), 0% grant M0100080 and (Ohio, USA) of NEC (Bell’s stage ≥II), (0/32) group IV 0/32 (OR, 0; CI, University Hospitals N = 119 (n = 40 group I: sepsis, length of hospital stay 0–3.56) of Cleveland Ohio PF only; n = 29 group II: and ventilator dependence, MM 1–24 mL/kg/d; n = 18 retinopathy of prematurity, Group III: MM 25–49 mL/ chronic lung disease kg; n = 32 group IV: MM ≥50 mL/kg/d)Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012 Lambert,33 OBS Infants >36 weeks GA, born To determine possible explanations Incidence of NEC: Overall incidence Formula feeding compared 2007 Retrospective from 2/2001 to 6/2006 for why patients develop NEC of 0.51% (30/5877) with exclusive MM Rate of attrition: 12/30 Intermountain Healthcare by comparison to age-matched Patients with NEC more likely feeding is one factor that Descriptive statistics NICUs (Utah, USA) patients without NEC exclusively fed with PF (53%, may predispose infants to N = 5877 (n = 30 with NEC) Primary outcome: Incidence of 16/30) or PF+MM (43%, 13/30) the development of NEC. NEC (Bell’s stage ≥II) vs exclusive MM (3%, 1/30); no Secondary outcomes: Morbidity, P value feeding tolerance, length of NEC-related mortality: 13% hospital stay mortality in infants with NEC BOV, bovine milk; BW, birth weight; CI, confidence interval; DM, donor milk; DOL, day of life; GA, gestational age; HMM, high mother’s milk; HM, human milk; LMM, low mother’s milk; MM, mother’s milk; NEC, necrotizing enterocolitis; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; NIH, National Institutes of Health; NNT, number needed to treat; OBS, observational study; OR, odds ratio; PF, preterm formula; PN, parenteral nutrition; RCT, randomized controlled trial; VLBW, very low birth weight.
Table 5. GRADE Table Question 2: Does the provision of mother’s milk reduce the risk of developing NEC relative to bovine-based products or formula? Quantity, Overall Type GRADE of Evidence Recommendation Comparison Outcome Evidence Findings for Outcome GRADE Human milk (mother’s or donor) vs human milk (mother’s or Incidence of NEC 1 RCT Lower Low Weak donor) + bovine-based products32 Donor milk vs preterm formula34 Incidence of NEC 1 RCT No difference Moderate Weak 33 Mother’s milk vs preterm formula Incidence of NEC 1 OBS Lower Low Weak Mother’s milk ≥50% vs <50% from days of life 1–1435 Incidence of NEC 1 OBS Lower Low Weak 36 Mother’s milk high vs low dose (mL/kg/d) Incidence of NEC 1 OBS No difference Low Weak NEC, necrotizing enterocolitis; OBS, observational study; RCT, randomized controlled trial. Table 6. Evidence Table Question 3: Do probiotics reduce the risk of developing NEC? Author, Study Design, Year Quality Population, Setting, N Study Objective Results Comments 37 Braga, RCT Preterm infants with BW To assess whether oral Incidence of NEC: 0% (0/119) in Probiotic use decreased the 2011 Double blind 750–1499 g, with no congenital supplementation of Lactobacillus the probiotic group and 3.6% incidence of NEC. Rate of attrition: infections, fed MM or DM, and casei and Bifidobacterium breve (4/112) in the control group (P No difference in mortality between 62/243 admitted 5/2007 to 4/2008 prevents the occurrence of NEC = .05) groups Randomized and started treatment Primary outcome: NEC (Bell’s stage Infants in the probiotic group on DOL 2, duration of ≥II) reached full enteral nutrition fasterDownloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012 treatment until DOL 30, NEC than the control group (P = .02), diagnosis, hospital discharge, suggesting that probiotics may or death play a role in intestinal motility. Single-center NICU (Brazil) The study was interrupted by an N = 231 (n = 119, probiotic external committee after 1 year, group; n = 112, control group) due to the significant differences found between groups. Awad,38 RCT Neonates 28–41 weeks GA with To evaluate the use of the probiotic Incidence of NEC: Decreased incidence of NEC in 2010 Placebo control BW 1100–4300 g, with normal Lactobacillus acidophilus in the 1.7% (1/60) in the LP group, 1.7% infants who received probiotics Double blind C-reactive protein and negative prevention of neonatal sepsis and (1/60) in the KP group, and vs placebo. However, there was Rate of attrition: blood cultures, admitted from NEC and to further investigate 16.7% (5/30) in the placebo no difference in the incidence of 25/150 1/2006 to 5/2007 on DOL 1 and differences between LP and KP in group; P value not provided NEC between LP and KP groups. followed until hospital discharge comparison to placebo LP group (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.16- LP and KP were preventative Single-center NICU (Egypt) Primary outcomes: NEC (Bell’s 1.74), KP group (OR 0.085; 95% against NEC, whereas placebo 11 N = 150 (n = 60 LP, n = 60 KP, n stage ≥II), sepsis CI 0.009-0.76), and placebo group was a risk factor for the = 30 placebo) (OR 3.4, 95% CI 2.44-4.72) development of NEC. (continued)
Table 6. (continued) 12 Author, Study Design, Year Quality Population, Setting, N Study Objective Results Comments Mihatsch,43 RCT VLBW infants <30 weeks GA To investigate whether Incidence of NEC: 2.2% (2/91) in No significant effect of B lactis on 2010 Double-blinded with BW <1500 g, fed PF supplementation with the probiotic the probiotic group and 4.5% the incidence of NEC Placebo controlled or MM, admitted 5/2000 to Bifidobacterium lactis for a (4/89) in the control group (P These study results emphasize the Rate of attrition: 8/2003 duration of 6 weeks reduces the = NS importance of an adequately 20/183 Single-center NICU, Children’s incidence of nosocomial infection NEC-related mortality: 1.1% powered trial to evaluate NEC as Intention-to-treat Hospital (Germany) Primary outcome: Nosocomial (1/91) in the probiotic group and the primary outcome. analysis N = 180 (n = 91 probiotic group, infection 0% (0/89) in the control group, n = 89 control group) Secondary outcome: NEC (Bell’s P = NS stage ≥II) Samanta,40 RCT VLBW infants <32 weeks GA To evaluate the effect of probiotics NEC incidence: 5.5% (5/91) in the Probiotics given to VLBW infants 2009 Double-blinded with BW <1500 g, having (mixture of Bifidobacteria bifidum, probiotic group and 15.8% (15/95) reduce the incidence of NEC. Rate of attrition: survived beyond DOL 2, fed Bifidobacteria infantis, Bifidobac- in the control group (P = .042) 18/186 exclusively MM, and admitted teria longum, and Lactobacillus The severity of NEC was similar in between 10/2007 and 3/2008 acidophilus) on feeding tolerance, both groups (P = .62). the incidence/severity of NEC Mortality due to NEC or sepsis Single-center NICU (India) (Bell’s stage ≥II), and mortality was lower in the probiotics N = 186 (n = 91 probiotic group, related to NEC or sepsis group compared with the n = 95 control group) Primary outcomes: Feeding control group (4.4% vs 14.7%, tolerance, length of hospitalization, respectively; P = .032). morbidities (NEC, sepsis, and/or death due to NEC or sepsis) Lin,39 2008 RCT Infants <34 weeks GA with To investigate the efficacy of oral Incidence of NEC: 1.8% (4/217) The administration of probiotics to Investigators at each BW <1500 g, fed MM or PF, probiotics, Bifidobacterium in the probiotic group and 6.5% preterm VLBW infants reducedDownloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012 center and the admitted between 4/2005 and bifidum and Lactobacillus (14/217) in the control group (P the incidence of NEC but did not breast milk team 5/2007 acidophilus (Infloran); 125 mg/kg/ = .02) affect NEC-related mortality. not blinded but Seven level III NICUs (Taiwan) dose twice daily for 6 weeks in the NEC-related mortality: 0.9% Based on study results, NNT to were not involved N = 434 (n = 217 probiotic group, prevention of NEC (2/217) in the probiotic group prevent 1 case of NEC was 20 in the care of the n = 217 control group) Primary outcomes: NEC (Bell’s and 1.4% (3/217) in the control patients. study infants stage ≥II) and death group (P = .98) Multicenter Secondary outcomes: Culture-proven Rate of attrition: sepsis without NEC, chronic 20/443 lung disease, periventricular leukomalacia, intraventricular hemorrhage, feeding amount and weight gain per week, days to full enteral nutrition (continued)
Table 6. (continued) Author, Study Design, Year Quality Population, Setting, N Study Objective Results Comments Bin-Nun,41 RCT Preterm neonates weighing ≤1500 To investigate whether the daily Incidence of NEC (all stages): 4% Probiotic supplementation reduces 2005 Double-blind g, recruited and enrolled when provision of prophylactic (3/72) in the probiotic group the incidence and severity of Placebo-controlled enteral nutrition (MM or PF) probiotics (mixture of and 16.4% (12/73) in the control NEC in preterm VLBW infants. Rate of attrition: began, admitted from 9/2001 to Bifidobacteria infantis, group (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 11/145 9/2004 and followed until 36 Streptococcus thermophilus, and 0.075–0.86) Intention-to-treat weeks post-conceptual age Bifidobacteria bifidus) decreases Incidence of NEC (Bell’s stage analysis Single-center NICU (Israel) the incidence and severity of NEC ≥II): 1% (1/72) in the probiotic N = 145 (n = 72 probiotic group, Primary outcome: NEC (Bell’s stage group and 14% (10/73) in n = 73 control group) ≥II) control group (P = .013) Secondary outcomes: Feeding NEC-related mortality: 0% (0/3) tolerance, mortality, mortality in the probiotic group and 25% related to NEC (3/12) in the control group (P = .87) Lin,42 2005 RCT Infants <34 weeks GA and BW To evaluate the effect of the Incidence of NEC: 1.1% (2/180) The administration of probiotics to Investigators and <1500 g, survived past DOL probiotics Lactobacillus in the probiotic group and 5.3% preterm VLBW infants reduces breast milk team 7, fed MM or DM, admitted acidophilus and Bifidobacterium (10/187) in the control group (P the incidence and severity of not blinded but from 7/1999 to 12/2003, infantis (Infloran); 125 mg/kg/dose = .04) NEC. were not involved and followed until hospital twice daily on the incidence and Incidence of NEC (Bell’s stage III): Significant difference in mortality in the care of the discharge severity of NEC 0% (0/2) in the probiotic group between the probiotic and control study infants Single-center, level III NICU Primary outcomes: NEC (Bell’s and 60% (6/10) in the control groups (3.9% vs 10.7%; P = Rate of attrition: (Taiwan) stage ≥II) and death group (P = .03) .009) 27/367 N = 367 (n = 180 probiotic group, Secondary outcome: Sepsis NNT to prevent 1 case of NEC is Logistic regression n = 187 control group) 27. analysisDownloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012 BW, birth weight; CI, confidence interval; DM, donor milk; DOL, day of life; GA, gestational age; KP, killed probiotic; LP, live probiotic; MM, mother’s milk; NEC, necrotizing enterocolitis; NICU, neonatal inten- sive care unit; NNT, number needed to treat; NS, not significant; OR, odds ratio; PF, preterm formula; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RR, relative risk; VLBW, very low birth weight. Table 7. GRADE Table Question 3: Do probiotics reduce the risk of developing NEC? Quantity, GRADE of Evidence for Overall Recommendation Comparison Outcome Type Evidence Findings Outcome GRADE Probiotic + human milk vs human milk37,42 Incidence of NEC 2 RCTs Lower High Strong 40 Probiotic + mother’s milk vs mother’s milk Incidence of NEC 1 RCT Lower High Strong Probiotic + mother’s milk or formula vs Incidence of NEC 2 RCTs Lower Moderate Strong 13 mother’s milk or formula39,41,43 1 RCT No difference Probiotic vs placebo38 Incidence of NEC 1 RCT Lower Moderate Strong NEC, necrotizing enterocolitis; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Table 8. Evidence Table Question 4: Do certain nutrients either prevent or predispose to the development of NEC? Study Design, Author, Year Quality Population, Setting, N Study Objective Results Comments 14 Poindexter,46 RCT ELBW infants 401–1000 g, To evaluate whether Incidence of NEC: 10% (69/721) Although parenteral glutamine 2004 Double-blind stratified by BW (401–750 g and supplementation of PN with 20% in the glutamine group and 10% supplementation seems to Rate of 751–1000 g), admitted between glutamine decreases mortality (68/712) in the control group (RR, be well tolerated in ELBW attrition: 10/1999 and 8/2001, followed or late-onset sepsis compared 0.99; 95% CI, 0.71–1.40; P = .99) infants, its routine use cannot be 251/1432 until age 120 days, death, or with administration of a standard When stratified by BW (401–750 recommended given the lack of hospital discharge neonatal amino acid injection g and 751–1000 g), there was clinical efficacy. Multicenter: 15 centers of the (TrophAmine) no significant difference in NICHD Neonatal Research Primary outcomes: Death, late- NEC incidence (P = .20 and .24, Network (USA) onset sepsis respectively). N = 1433 (n = 721 glutamine Secondary outcomes: NEC, Incidence of surgical NEC: 57% supplementation group, n = 712 number of episodes of late-onset (39/69) in the glutamine group control group) sepsis, ventilator days, enteral and 49% (33/68) in the control nutrition tolerance, PN duration, group (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, growth 0.90–1.44; P = .19) Fewtrell,48 RCT Preterm infants <37 weeks GA To evaluate the effect of LCPUFA Incidence of NEC: 3.6% (7/195) Increased incidence of NEC in 2002 Double-blind with BW <1750 g, tolerating supplementation in PF compared in the PF group overall and 0% infants who received PF+LCPUFA Rate of enteral nutrition by 10 days of with nonsupplemented PF (0/88) in the MM group (P = .10) supplementation, although the attrition: age, followed for an average of and MM on subsequent 2% (2/100) in PF without LCPUFA difference between groups was not 43/283 32 days neurodevelopmental outcome and 5.3% (5/95) in PF+LCPUFA statistically significant 3 NICUs (United Kingdom) Primary outcomes: Bayley MDI (P = .11) These findings emphasize the need N = 283 (n = 100 PF without and PDI at age 18 months These numbers include 2 infants for additional investigation to LCPUFA, n = 95 PF+LCPUFA, Secondary outcomes: who received <20 mL LCPUFA- evaluate the efficacy and safety n = 88 MM) Neurodevelopment (9 months), supplemented formula and 1 infant of LCPUFA supplementation of neurologic impairment and who had no consumption of the formula for preterm infants. anthropometry measurements control formula prior to the NEC. (9 and 18 months), enteral Incidence of surgical NEC: 0% tolerance, infection, NEC, death (0/100) in PF without LCPUFA,Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012 2.1% (2/95) in PF+LCPUFA, and 0% (0/81) in the MM group (no P value given) Amin,45 2002 RCT Premature infants ≤32 weeks GA To determine whether Incidence of NEC (overall): 6.7% Prophylactic administration of Double- with BW ≤1250 g, admitted supplementation with (5/75) in the L-arginine group arginine appears to be effective blinded from 3/1997 to 7/1999, treatment L-arginine (1.5 mmol/kg/d) and 27.3% (21/77) in the placebo in reducing the overall incidence Placebo- duration days 1–28 of life, reduces the incidence of NEC group (P < .001) of NEC in preterm infants, controlled maintained on oral feeds or PN Primary outcome: NEC, all stages Incidence of NEC (Bell’s stage although there was no statistically Rate of Single-center NICU (Canada) Secondary outcomes: Mortality, II): 6.7% (5/75) infants in the significant difference in the attrition: N = 152 (n = 75 L-arginine group, feeding tolerance, nutrient L-arginine group compared with incidence of Bell’s stage II NEC. 5/152 n = 77 placebo group) intake, plasma ammonia, 16.9% (13/77) of infants in the arginine, glutamine, amino acid control group (P = .077) concentrations None of the infants developed Bell’s stage III NEC requiring operative intervention. BW, birth weight; CI, confidence interval; ELBW, extremely low birth weight; GA, gestational age; IV, intravenous; LCPUFA, long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid; MDI, mental developmental index; MM, mother’s milk; NEC, necrotizing enterocolitis; NICHD, National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; PDI, psychomotor developmental index; PF, preterm formula; PN, parenteral nutrition; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RR, relative risk.
Table 9. GRADE Table Question 4: Do certain nutrients either prevent or predispose to the development of NEC? Quantity, Type GRADE of Evidence Overall Recommendation Comparison Outcome Evidence Findings for Outcome GRADE L-arginine supplementation vs no Incidence of NEC 1 RCT Lower Moderate Further research needed supplementation45 Glutamine vs no glutamine Incidence of NEC 1 RCT No difference Moderate Strong supplementation46 Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid Incidence of NEC 1 RCT No difference Low Further research needed supplementation vs no supplementation48 NEC, necrotizing enterocolitis; RCT, randomized controlled trial. Table 10. Evidence Table Question 5: When should feeds be reintroduced to infants with NEC? Author, Year Study Design, Quality Population, Setting, N Study Objective Results Comments 49 Brotschi, OBS All term and preterm infants To compare the effect of fasting 64% (30/47) of infants fasted for Findings suggest that early 2009 with NEC (Bell’s stage II) period duration (≤5 days vs >5 ≤5 days (range, 1–5) and 36% enteral nutrition after Retrospective admitted between 1/2000 days) on the complication rates (17/47) fasted for >5 days conservatively managed and 12/2006 in infants with NEC managed (range, 6–16). NEC may lower morbidity No attrition conservatively after the acute phase of the Multicenter study at 5 NEC relapse: 3.3% (1/30) in disease.Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012 No financial NICUs in tertiary care Primary end points: Bowel stricture, the ≤5-day group and 11.8% disclosures centers (Switzerland) NEC relapse, catheter-related (2/17) in the >5-day group (P Infants who fasted for a sepsis = .27) shorter duration had N = 47 (n = 30 in ≤5-day a significantly lower group, n = 17 in >5-day Lower incidence of early post- incidence of catheter-related group) NEC stricture (1/30 vs 4/17, sepsis. P = .05) and catheter-related sepsis (0/30 vs 5/17, P = .004) Underpowered study in the ≤5-day group for detecting potential differences in the incidence of NEC relapse (continued) 15
Table 10. (continued) Author, Year Study Design, Quality Population, Setting, N Study Objective Results Comments Bohnhorst,50 OBS Infants <36 weeks GA To report on an institutional Incidence of NEC: 5% (26/523) Early enteral nutrition after 2003 admitted with NEC (Bell’s experience with early initiation in the early feeding group and NEC is associated with Retrospective stage ≥II) between 1998 of enteral nutrition after NEC 4% (18/436) in the historical significant benefits and no 16 and 2001 diagnosis control group apparent adverse events. Comparison to historical control Single-institution NICU Group 1: Feeds initiated after 3 Early feeding associated with: The study is underpowered group of infants (Germany) consecutive days without evidence 1. Shorter time to reach goal to exclude a higher NEC with NEC admitted of portal venous gas on ultrasound; feeds: 10 days (range, 8–22) recurrence risk as a result of from 1993–1997 N = 959 (n = 523 infants day 1: 20 mL/kg/d distilled water, vs 19 days (range, 9–76); P early institution of enteral in secondary 4-year day 2: PF or MM, advanced 20 < .001 nutrition after NEC. No financial observation period, n = mL/kg/d until achievement of goal 2. Reduced duration of central disclosures 436 infants in historical at 150 mL/kg/d. venous access: 13.5 days control group) (range, 8–24) vs 26 days Group 2 (control): Feeds initiated (range, 8–39); P < .01 at discretion of neonatologist 3. Less catheter-related (typically 14 days after onset of septicemia: 18% vs 29%; P NEC). < .01 4. Shorter duration of hospital Primary end point: Recurrence of stay: 63 days (range, 28–133) NEC vs 69 days (range, 36–150); P < .05 Secondary end points: Time to full enteral nutrition, duration of central access, incidence of catheter-related septicemia, duration of hospital stay GA, gestational age; MM, mother’s milk; NEC, necrotizing enterocolitis; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; OBS, observational study; PF, preterm formula.Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012 Table 11. GRADE Table Question 5: When should feeds be reintroduced to infants with NEC? Overall Quantity, Type GRADE of Recommendation Comparison Outcome Evidence Findings Evidence for Outcome GRADE Early vs late introduction NEC relapse 2 OBS No difference Low Further research needed of enteral nutrition after NEC (Bell’s stage II)49,50 Central access duration Lower Low Further research needed Catheter-related sepsis Lower Low Further research needed Post-NEC stricture Lower Low Further research needed Duration hospital stay Lower Low Further research needed NEC, necrotizing enterocolitis; OBS, observational study.
A.S.P.E.N. Clinical Guidelines / Fallon et al 17Acknowledgments 16. McClave SA, Martindale RG, Vanek VW, et al. ; A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors; American College of Critical Care Medicine. Guidelines for theA.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors providing final approval Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Adult Criti- Jay M. Mirtallo, MS, RPh, BCNSP, FASHP (President); Phil cally Ill Patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). JPEN J ParenterAyers, PharmD, BCNSP; Praveen S. Goday, MBBS, CNSC; Carol Enteral Nutr. 2009;33:277-316.Ireton-Jones, PhD, RD, LD, CNSD; Tom Jaksic, MD, PhD; 17. August DA, Huhmann MB; American Society for Parenteral and EnteralElizabeth M. Lyman, RN, MSN; Ainsley M. Malone, RD, MS, Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) Board of Directors. A.S.P.E.N. clinical guidelines:CNSC; Lawrence A. Robinson, PharmD; Daniel Teitelbaum, nutrition support therapy during adult anticancer treatment and in hema-MD; and Charles Van Way III, MD, FASPEN. topoietic cell transplantation. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2009 Sep- Oct;33(5):472-500. 18. Sabery N, Duggan C; American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutri- tion Board of Directors. A.S.P.E.N. clinical guidelines: nutrition supportA.S.P.E.N. Clinical Guidelines Editorial Board of children with human immunodeficiency virus infection. JPEN J Par- Charlene Compher, PhD, RD, FADA, CNSC (Editor in enter Enteral Nutr. 2009 Nov-Dec; 33(6):588-606. No abstract available.Chief); Joseph Boullata, PharmD, BCNSP; Carol Braunsch- PMID:19892900weig, PhD, RD; Mary Ellen Druyan, PhD, MPH, RD, CNS, 19. Jesuit C, Dillon C, Compher C, Lenders CM, American Society for Par- enteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) Board of Directors. A.S.P.E.N.FACN; Donald George, MD; Edwin Simpser, MD; and Patricia Clinical Guidelines: Nutrition support of Hospitalized Pediatric PatientsWorthington, MSN, RN, CNSN. with Obesity. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2010 Jan-Feb;34(1): 13-20. 20. Jaksic T, Hull MA, Modi BP, Ching YA, George D, Compher C; Ameri-References can Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) Board of 1. Holman RC, Stoll BJ, Curns AT, Yorita KL, Steiner CA, Schonberger LB. Directors. A.S.P.E.N. Clinical guidelines: nutrition support of neonates Necrotising enterocolitis hospitalisations among neonates in the United supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. JPEN J Parenter States. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2006;20(6):498-506. Enteral Nutr. 2010 May-Jun;34(3):247-53. 2. Rees CM, Pierro A, Eaton S. Neurodevelopmental outcomes of neonates 21. Brown RO, Compher C; American Society for Parenteral and Enteral with medically and surgically treated necrotizing enterocolitis. Arch Dis Nutrition Board of Directors. A.S.P.E.N. clinical guidelines: nutrition sup- Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2007;92(3):F193-F198. port in adult acute and chronic renal failure. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 3. Bisquera JA, Cooper TR, Berseth CL. Impact of necrotizing enterocolitis 2010 Jul-Aug;34(4):366-77. on length of stay and hospital charges in very low birth weight infants. 22. Mueller C, Compher C, Druyan ME, American Society for Parenteral Pediatrics. 2002;109(3):423-428. and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) Board of Directors. A.S.P.E.N. 4. Horbar JD, Badger GJ, Carpenter JH, et al. Trends in mortality and mor- Clinical Guidelines: Nutrition Screening, Assessment, and Interven- bidity for very low birth weight infants, 1991-1999. Pediatrics. 2002;110 tion in Adults. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2011 January-February; (1, pt 1):143-151. 35(1):16-24. 5. Erasmus HD, Ludwig-Auser HM, Paterson PG, Sun D, Sankaran K. 23. Arsenault D, Brenn M, Kim S, Gura K, Compher C, Simper E, (A.S.P.E.N.) Enhanced weight gain in preterm infants receiving lactase-treated feeds: a American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Board of Directors, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. J Pediatr. 2002;141(4):532-537. Puder M. A.S.P.E.N. Clinical Guidelines: Complications Unique to Neo- 6. Fitzgibbons SC, Ching Y, Yu D, et al. Mortality of necrotizing enterocolitis nates - Hyperglycemia and Hypoglycemia in the Parenterally-Fed Neo- expressed by birth weight categories. J Pediatr Surg. 2009;44(6):1072- nate. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2012;36(1):81-95. 1075; discussion 1075-1076. 24. Druyan M, Compher C, Boullata JI, et al. Clinical guidelines for the use 7. Clark RH, Gordon P, Walker WM, Laughon M, Smith PB, Spitzer AR. of parenteral and enteral nutrition in adult and pediatric patients: applying Characteristics of patients who die of necrotizing enterocolitis. J Perinatol. the GRADE system to development of A.S.P.E.N. clinical guidelines [pub- 2012;32(3):199-204. lished online ahead of print December 16, 2011]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral 8. Berman L, Moss RL. Necrotizing enterocolitis: an update. Semin Fetal Nutr. doi:10.1177/0148607111420157. Neonatal Med. 2011;16(3):145-150. 25. Karagianni P, Briana DD, Mitsiakos G, et al. Early versus delayed minimal 9. Neu J, Walker WA. Necrotizing enterocolitis. N Engl J Med. 2011; enteral feeding and risk for necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm growth- 364(3):255-264. restricted infants with abnormal antenatal Doppler results. Am J Perinatol.10. Bell MJ, Ternberg JL, Feigin RD, et al. Neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis: 2010;27(5):367-373. therapeutic decisions based upon clinical staging. Ann Surg. 1978;187(1):1-7. 26. Berseth CL, Bisquera JA, Paje VU. Prolonging small feeding volumes11. Walsh MC, Kliegman RM. Necrotizing enterocolitis: treatment based on early in life decreases the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis in very low staging criteria. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1986;33(1):179-201. birth weight infants. Pediatrics. 2003;111(3):529-534.12. A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors. Guidelines for use of total parenteral 27. Mosqueda E, Sapiegiene L, Glynn L, Wilson-Costello D, Weiss M. The nutrition in the hospitalized adult patient. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. early use of minimal enteral nutrition in extremely low birth weight new- 1986;10(5):441-445. borns. J Perinatol. 2008;28(4):264-269.13. American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. Guidelines for the 28. van Elburg RM, van den Berg A, Bunkers CM, et al. Minimal enteral feed- use of parenteral and enteral nutrition in adult and pediatric patients. JPEN ing, fetal blood flow pulsatility, and postnatal intestinal permeability in J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1993;17(4)(suppl):1SA-52SA. preterm infants with intrauterine growth retardation. Arch Dis Child Fetal14. A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors, the Clinical Guidelines Task Force. Guide- Neonatal Ed. 2004;89(4):F293-F296. lines for the use of parenteral and enteral nutrition in adult and pediatric 29. Krishnamurthy S, Gupta P, Debnath S, Gomber S. Slow versus rapid patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002;26(1)(suppl):1SA-138SA. enteral feeding advancement in preterm newborn infants 1000-1499 g: a15. Mehta NM, Compher C, American Society for Parenteral and Enteral randomized controlled trial. Acta Paediatr. 2010;99(1):42-46. Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) Board of Directors. “A.S.P.E.N. Clinical Guide- 30. Caple J, Armentrout D, Huseby V, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of lines: Nutrition support of the critically ill child.” JPEN J Parenter Enteral slow versus rapid feeding volume advancement in preterm infants. Pediat- Nutr 2009, 33:260-276. rics. 2004;114(6):1597-1600. Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012
18 Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition XX(X)31. Salhotra A, Ramji S. Slow versus fast enteral feed advancement in very 41. Bin-Nun A, Bromiker R, Wilschanski M, et al. Oral probiotics prevent low birth weight infants: a randomized control trial. Indian Pediatr. necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight neonates. J Pediatr. 2004;41(5):435-441. 2005;147(2):192-196.32. Sullivan S, Schanler RJ, Kim JH, et al. An exclusively human milk–based diet 42. Lin HC, Su BH, Chen AC, et al. Oral probiotics reduce the incidence and is associated with a lower rate of necrotizing enterocolitis than a diet of human severity of necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Pedi- milk and bovine milk–based products. J Pediatr. 2010;156(4):562-567.e1. atrics. 2005;115(1):1-4.33. Lambert DK, Christensen RD, Henry E, et al. Necrotizing enterocolitis in 43. Mihatsch WA, Vossbeck S, Eikmanns B, Hoegel J, Pohlandt F. Effect of term neonates: data from a multihospital health-care system. J Perinatol. Bifidobacterium lactis on the incidence of nosocomial infections in very- 2007;27(7):437-443. low-birth-weight infants: a randomized controlled trial. Neonatology.34. Schanler RJ, Lau C, Hurst NM, Smith EO. Randomized trial of donor human 2010;98(2):156-163. milk versus preterm formula as substitutes for mothers’ own milk in the feed- 44. Richir MC, Siroen MP, van Elburg RM, et al. Low plasma concentrations ing of extremely premature infants. Pediatrics. 2005;116(2):400-406. of arginine and asymmetric dimethylarginine in premature infants with35. Sisk PM, Lovelady CA, Dillard RG, Gruber KJ, O’Shea TM. Early human necrotizing enterocolitis. Br J Nutr. 2007;97(5):906-911. milk feeding is associated with a lower risk of necrotizing enterocolitis in 45. Amin HJ, Zamora SA, McMillan DD, et al. Arginine supplementation very low birth weight infants. J Perinatol. 2007;27(7):428-433. prevents necrotizing enterocolitis in the premature infant. J Pediatr.36. Furman L, Taylor G, Minich N, Hack M. The effect of maternal milk on 2002;140(4):425-431. neonatal morbidity of very low-birth-weight infants. Arch Pediatr Adolesc 46. Poindexter BB, Ehrenkranz RA, Stoll BJ, et al. Parenteral glutamine Med. 2003;157(1):66-71. supplementation does not reduce the risk of mortality or late-onset37. Braga TD, da Silva GA, de Lira PI, de Carvalho Lima M. Efficacy of Bifido- sepsis in extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics. 2004;113(5): bacterium breve and Lactobacillus casei oral supplementation on necrotiz- 1209-1215. ing enterocolitis in very-low-birth-weight preterm infants: a double-blind, 47. Trintis J, Donohue P, Aucott S. Outcomes of early parenteral nutrition for randomized, controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;93(1): 81-86. premature infants. J Perinatol. 2010;30(6):403-407.38. Awad H, Mokhtar H, Imam SS, Gad GI, Hafez H, Aboushady N. Com- 48. Fewtrell MS, Morley R, Abbott RA, et al. Double-blind, randomized trial parison between killed and living probiotic usage versus placebo for the of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in formula fed to prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis and sepsis in neonates. Pak J Biol preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2002;110(1, pt 1):73-82. Sci. 2010;13(6):253-262. 49. Brotschi B, Baenziger O, Frey B, Bucher HU, Ersch J. Early enteral39. Lin HC, Hsu CH, Chen HL, et al. Oral probiotics prevent necrotizing feeding in conservatively managed stage II necrotizing enterocolitis is enterocolitis in very low birth weight preterm infants: a multicenter, ran- associated with a reduced risk of catheter-related sepsis. J Perinat Med. domized, controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2008;122(4):693-700. 2009;37(6):701-705.40. Samanta M, Sarkar M, Ghosh P, Ghosh J, Sinha M, Chatterjee S. Pro- 50. Bohnhorst B, Muller S, Dordelmann M, Peter CS, Petersen C, Poets CF. phylactic probiotics for prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis in very low Early feeding after necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants. J Pediatr. birth weight newborns. J Trop Pediatr. 2009;55(2):128-131. 2003;143(4):484-487. Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com by guest on August 24, 2012