Routine monitoring of gastric residual for prevention of necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Routine monitoring of gastric residual in preterm infants on gavage feeds is a common practice used to guide initiation and advancement of feeds. It is believed that an increase in or an altered gastric residual may be predictive of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). Withholding monitoring of gastric residual may take away the early indicator and thus may increase the risk of NEC. However, routine monitoring of gastric residual as a guide, in the absence of uniform standards, may lead to unnecessary delay in initiation and advancement of feeds and hence might result in a delay in establishing full enteral feeds. This in turn may increase the duration of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and central venous line usage, increasing the risk of associated complications. Furthermore, delays in establishing full enteral feeds increase the risk of extrauterine growth restriction and neurodevelopmental impairment. OBJECTIVES: • To assess the efficacy and safety of routine monitoring versus no monitoring of gastric residual in preterm infants • To assess the efficacy and safety of routine monitoring of gastric residual based on two different criteria for interrupting feeds or decreasing feed volume in preterm infants SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches in Cochrane CENTRAL via CRS, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL in February 2022. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi- and cluster-RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs that compared routine monitoring versus no monitoring of gastric residual and trials that used two different criteria for gastric residual to interrupt feeds in preterm infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial/harmful outcome (NNTB/NNTH) for dichotomous outcomes with significant results. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies (423 infants) in this updated review. Routine monitoring versus no routine monitoring of gastric residual in preterm infants Four RCTs with 336 preterm infants met the inclusion criteria for this comparison. Three studies were performed in infants with birth weight of < 1500 g, while one study included infants with birth weight between 750 g and 2000 g. The trials were unmasked but were otherwise of good methodological quality. Routine monitoring of gastric residual:  - probably has little or no effect on the risk of NEC (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.57; 334 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably increases the time to establish full enteral feeds (MD 3.14 days, 95% CI 1.93 to 4.36; 334 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); - may increase the time to regain birth weight (MD 1.70 days, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.39; 80 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence);  - may increase the number of infants with feed interruption episodes (RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.20; NNTH 3, 95% CI 2 to 5; 191 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence);  - probably increases the number of TPN days (MD 2.57 days, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.95; 334 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably increases the risk of invasive infection (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.19; NNTH 10, 95% CI 5 to 100; 334 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality before hospital discharge (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.77 to 5.97; 273 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). Quality and volume of gastric residual compared to quality of gastric residual alone for feed interruption in preterm infants One trial with 87 preterm infants met the inclusion criteria for this comparison. The trial included infants with 1500 g to 2000 g birth weight.  Using two different criteria of gastric residual for feed interruption: - may result in little or no difference in the incidence of NEC (RR 5.35, 95% CI 0.26 to 108.27; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence);  - may result in little or no difference in time to establish full enteral feeds (MD -0.10 days, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.71; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little or no difference in time to regain birth weight (MD 1.00 days, 95% CI -0.37 to 2.37; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little or no difference in number of TPN days (MD 0.80 days, 95% CI -0.78 to 2.38; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little or no difference in the risk of invasive infection (RR 5.35, 95% CI 0.26 to 108.27; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality before hospital discharge (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.67; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence).  - we are uncertain about the effect of using two different criteria of gastric residual on the risk of feed interruption episodes (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.67; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence suggests routine monitoring of gastric residual has little or no effect on the incidence of NEC. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests monitoring gastric residual probably increases the time to establish full enteral feeds, the number of TPN days and the risk of invasive infection. Low-certainty evidence suggests monitoring gastric residual may increase the time to regain birth weight and the number of feed interruption episodes, and may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality before hospital discharge. Further RCTs are warranted to assess the effect on long-term growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Anti-seizure medications for neonates with seizures.

BACKGROUND: Newborn infants are more prone to seizures than older children and adults. The neuronal injury caused by seizures in neonates often results in long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae. There are several options for anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in neonates. However, the ideal choice of first-, second- and third-line ASM is still unclear. Further, many other aspects of seizure management such as whether ASMs should be initiated for only-electrographic seizures and how long to continue the ASM once seizure control is achieved are elusive. OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess whether any ASM is more or less effective than an alternative ASM (both ASMs used as first-, second- or third-line treatment) in achieving seizure control and improving neurodevelopmental outcomes in neonates with seizures. We analysed EEG-confirmed seizures and clinically-diagnosed seizures separately. 2. To assess maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy after achieving seizure control. We analysed EEG-confirmed seizures and clinically-diagnosed seizures separately. 3. To assess treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone in neonates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos and three databases in May 2022 and June 2023. These searches were not limited other than by study design to trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included neonates with EEG-confirmed or clinically diagnosed seizures and compared (1) any ASM versus an alternative ASM, (2) maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy, and (3) treatment of clinical or EEG seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility, risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence interval (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 trials (1342 infants) in this review. Phenobarbital versus levetiracetam as first-line ASM in EEG-confirmed neonatal seizures (one trial) Phenobarbital is probably more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control after first loading dose (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.63 to 3.30; 106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and after maximal loading dose (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.50; 106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital when compared to levetiracetam on mortality before discharge (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.52; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence), requirement of mechanical ventilation (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.91; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence), sedation/drowsiness (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.68 to 4.44; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.76; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. Phenobarbital versus phenytoin as first-line ASM in EEG-confirmed neonatal seizures (one trial) We are uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital versus phenytoin on achieving seizure control after maximal loading dose of ASM (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.72; 59 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. Maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy in clinically diagnosed neonatal seizures (two trials) We are uncertain about the effect of short-term maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy during the hospital stay (but discontinued before discharge) on the risk of repeat seizures before hospital discharge (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.01; 373 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Maintenance therapy with ASM compared to no maintenance therapy may have little or no effect on mortality before discharge (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.22; 373 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.61; 111 participants; low-certainty evidence), neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.12; 108 participants; low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 14.72; 126 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone in neonates (two trials) Treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures when compared to treating clinical seizures alone may have little or no effect on seizure burden during hospitalisation (MD -1871.16, 95% CI -4525.05 to 782.73; 68 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality before discharge (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.27; 68 participants; low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.73; 35 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. We report data from the most important comparisons here; readers are directed to Results and Summary of Findings tables for all comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Phenobarbital as a first-line ASM is probably more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control after the first loading dose and after the maximal loading dose of ASM (moderate-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital + bumetanide may have little or no difference in achieving seizure control when compared to phenobarbital alone (low-certainty evidence). Limited data and very low-certainty evidence preclude us from drawing any reasonable conclusion on the effect of using one ASM versus another on other short- and long-term outcomes. In neonates who achieve seizure control after the first loading dose of phenobarbital, maintenance therapy compared to no maintenance ASM may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality before discharge, mortality by 18 to 24 months, neurodevelopmental disability by 18 to 24 months and epilepsy post-discharge (low-certainty evidence). In neonates with hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy, treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures when compared to treating clinical seizures alone may have little or no effect on seizure burden during hospitalisation, all-cause mortality before discharge and epilepsy post-discharge (low-certainty evidence). All findings of this review apply only to term and late preterm neonates. We need well-designed RCTs for each of the three objectives of this review to improve the precision of the results. These RCTs should use EEG to diagnose seizures and should be adequately powered to assess long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. We need separate RCTs evaluating the choice of ASM in preterm infants.

Re-feeding versus discarding gastric residuals to improve growth in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Routine monitoring of gastric residuals in preterm infants on tube feeds is a common practice in neonatal intensive care units used to guide initiation and advancement of enteral feeding. There is a paucity of consensus on whether to re-feed or discard the aspirated gastric residuals. While re-feeding gastric residuals may aid in digestion and promote gastrointestinal motility and maturation by replacing partially digested milk, gastrointestinal enzymes, hormones, and trophic substances, abnormal residuals may result in vomiting, necrotising enterocolitis, or sepsis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of re-feeding when compared to discarding gastric residuals in preterm infants.  SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted in February 2022 in Cochrane CENTRAL via CRS, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs that compared re-feeding versus discarding gastric residuals in preterm infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data, in duplicate. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and the mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We found one eligible trial that included 72 preterm infants. The trial was unmasked but was otherwise of good methodological quality. Re-feeding gastric residual may have little or no effect on time to regain birth weight (MD 0.40 days, 95% CI -2.89 to 3.69; 59 infants; low-certainty evidence), risk of necrotising enterocolitis stage ≥ 2 or spontaneous intestinal perforation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.04; 72 infants; low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality before hospital discharge (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.85; 72 infants; low-certainty evidence), time to establish enteral feeds ≥ 120 mL/kg/d (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.33; 59 infants; low-certainty evidence), number of total parenteral nutrition days (MD -0.30 days, 95% CI -2.07 to 1.47; 59 infants; low-certainty evidence), and risk of extrauterine growth restriction at discharge (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.34; 59 infants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain as to the effect of re-feeding gastric residual on number of episodes of feed interruption lasting for ≥ 12 hours (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.52; 59 infants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found only limited data from one small unmasked trial on the efficacy and safety of re-feeding gastric residuals in preterm infants. Low-certainty evidence suggests re-feeding gastric residual may have little or no effect on important clinical outcomes such as necrotising enterocolitis, all-cause mortality before hospital discharge, time to establish enteral feeds, number of total parenteral nutrition days, and in-hospital weight gain. A large RCT is needed to assess the efficacy and safety of re-feeding of gastric residuals in preterm infants with adequate certainty of evidence to inform policy and practice.

High versus standard volume enteral feeds to promote growth in preterm or low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Human milk is the best enteral nutrition for preterm infants. However, human milk, given at standard recommended volumes, is not adequate to meet the protein, energy, and other nutrient requirements of preterm or low birth weight infants. One strategy that may be used to address the potential nutrient deficits is to give a higher volume of enteral feeds. High volume feeds may improve nutrient accretion and growth, and in turn may improve neurodevelopmental outcomes. However, there are concerns that high volume feeds may cause feed intolerance, necrotising enterocolitis, or complications related to fluid overload such as patent ductus arteriosus and chronic lung disease. This is an update of a review published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect on growth and safety of high versus standard volume enteral feeds in preterm or low birth weight infants. In infants who were fed fortified human milk or preterm formula, high and standard volume feeds were defined as > 180 mL/kg/day and ≤ 180 mL/kg/day, respectively. In infants who were fed unfortified human milk or term formula, high and standard volume feeds were defined as > 200 mL/kg/day and ≤ 200 mL/kg/day, respectively. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020 Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to June 2020); Embase (1974 to June 2020); and CINAHL (inception to June 2020); Maternity & Infant Care Database (MIDIRS) (1971 to April 2020); as well as previous reviews, and trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared high versus standard volume enteral feeds for preterm or low birth weight infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported risk ratio (RR) and risk difference for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcomes were weight gain, linear and head growth during hospital stay, and extrauterine growth restriction at discharge. MAIN RESULTS: We included two new RCTs (283 infants) in this update. In total, we included three trials (347 infants) in this updated review. High versus standard volume feeds with fortified human milk or preterm formula Two trials (283 infants) met the inclusion criteria for this comparison. Both were of good methodological quality, except for lack of masking. Both trials were performed in infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation. Meta-analysis of data from both trials showed high volume feeds probably improves weight gain during hospital stay (MD 2.58 g/kg/day, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.76; participants = 271; moderate-certainty evidence). High volume feeds may have little or no effect on linear growth (MD 0.05 cm/week, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.13; participants = 271; low-certainty evidence), head growth (MD 0.02 cm/week, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.09; participants = 271; low-certainty evidence), and extrauterine growth restriction at discharge (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.02; participants = 271; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of high volume feeds with fortified human milk or preterm formula on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.51; participants = 283; very-low certainty evidence). High versus standard volume feeds with unfortified human milk or term formula One trial with 64 very low birth weight infants met the inclusion criteria for this comparison. This trial was unmasked but otherwise of good methodological quality. High volume feeds probably improves weight gain during hospital stay (MD 6.2 g/kg/day, 95% CI 2.71 to 9.69; participants = 61; moderate-certainty evidence). The trial did not provide data on linear and head growth, and extrauterine growth restriction at discharge. We are uncertain as to the effect of high volume feeds with unfortified human milk or term formula on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.78; participants = 61; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High volume feeds (≥ 180 mL/kg/day of fortified human milk or preterm formula, or ≥ 200 mL/kg/day of unfortified human milk or term formula) probably improves weight gain during hospital stay. The available data is inadequate to draw conclusions on the effect of high volume feeds on other growth and clinical outcomes. A large RCT is needed to provide data of sufficient quality and precision to inform policy and practice.

Diagnostic Dilemma of an Umbilical Mass in a Newborn Infant - a Twin or a Tumor?

BACKGROUND: We present the diagnostic dilemma of a neonate with two umbilical soft tissue masses. Case report: The baby had an umbilical mass herniating through the umbilical cord, and another mass hanging from the umbilical mass by a string of tissue. Both masses were amorphous solid soft tissues and the hanging mass had hair on the surface. Clinical diagnosis was umbilical cord teratoma. However, histopathological examination of the masses showed that tissues representing various organs were arranged in cephalocaudal order as in a fetus, revealing that it was a parasitic twin. The hanging mass was probably the cephalic part and the umbilical mass was malformed torso and limbs. Conclusion: This parasitic omphalopagus heteropagus parasitic twin presented as two amorphous masses without externally identifiable anatomic structure, The parasitic twin of omphalopagus heteropagus may have unusual presentations. Histopathological examination was essential to diagnose whether it is a twin or a tumor.

Early fortification of human milk versus late fortification to promote growth in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty exists about the optimal point at which multi-component fortifier should be added to human milk for promoting growth in preterm infants. The most common practice is to start fortification when the infant's daily enteral feed volume reaches 100 mL/kg body weight. Another approach is to commence fortification earlier, in some cases as early as the first enteral feed. Early fortification of human milk could increase nutrient intake and growth rates but may increase the risk of feed intolerance and necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). OBJECTIVES: To assess effects on growth and safety of early fortification of human milk versus late fortification in preterm infants To assess whether effects vary based upon gestational age (≤ 27 weeks; 28 to 31 weeks; ≥ 32 weeks), birth weight (< 1000 g; 1000 to 1499 g; ≥ 1500 g), small or appropriate for gestational age, or type of fortifier (bovine milk-based human milk fortifier (HMF); human milk-based HMF; formula powder) SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8); OVID MEDLINE (R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions (R) (1946 to 15 August 2019); MEDLINE via PubMed (1 August 2018 to 15 August 2019) for the previous year; and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literatue (CINAHL) (1981 to 15 August 2019). We searched clinical trials databases and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared early versus late fortification of human milk in preterm infants. We defined early fortification as fortification started at < 100 mL/kg/d enteral feed volume or < 7 days postnatal age, and late fortification as fortification started at ≥ 100 mL/kg/d feeds or ≥ 7 days postnatal age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials, and we reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials with a total of 237 infants. All participants were very low birth weight infants (birth weight < 1500 g). Early fortification was started at 20 mL/kg/d enteral feeds in one study and 40 mL/kg/d in the other study. Late fortification was started at 100 mL/kg/d feeds in both studies. One study used bovine milk-based fortifier, and the other used human milk-based fortifier. Meta-analysis showed that early fortification may have little or no effect on growth outcomes including time to regain birth weight (MD -0.06 days, 95% CI -1.32 to 1.20 days), linear growth (MD 0.10 cm/week, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.22 cm/week), or head growth (MD -0.01 cm/week, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06 cm/week) during the initial hospitalisation period. Early fortification may have little or no effect on the risk of NEC (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06). The certainty of evidence was low for these outcomes due to risk of bias (lack of blinding) and imprecision (small sample size). Early fortification may have little or no effect on incidence of surgical NEC, time to reach full enteral feeds, extrauterine growth restriction at discharge, proportion of infants with feed interruption episodes, duration of total parenteral nutrition (TPN), duration of central venous line usage, or incidence of invasive infection, all-cause mortality, and duration of hospital stay. The certainty of evidence was low for these outcomes due to risk of bias (lack of blinding) and imprecision (small sample size). We did not have data for other outcomes such as subsequent weight gain after birth weight is regained, parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease, postdischarge growth, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence is insufficient to support or refute early fortification of human milk in preterm infants. Further large trials would be needed to provide data of sufficient quality and precision to inform policy and practice.

Autologous umbilical cord blood for red cell concentrate transfusion in preterm infants in the era of delayed cord clamping: An uncontrolled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of autologous umbilical cord blood (UCB) for red cell concentrate (RCC) transfusion in preterm infants. METHODS: We recruited preterm infants born at ≤30 weeks' gestation or have an estimated fetal weight <1,200 g. We intended to perform delayed cord clamping (DCC) and to collect UCB following DCC. The quality parameters used included blood culture performed once, and biochemical and haematological parameters assessed weekly. RESULTS: Of the 46 recruited neonates, DCC could be performed for 1 minute in 11 (23.9%) and for 30-59 seconds in 10 (21.7%) infants. The success rate of UCB collection was significantly lower in infants who underwent DCC for 1 minute (27%) compared to those who underwent DCC for 30-59 seconds (70%) or immediate cord clamping (72%) (p value 0.031). Twenty-five UCBs were stored after eliminating three that had positive culture. UCB had satisfactory quality for transfusion from day 3 (when blood culture report was available) to 14 (after which pH decreased to <6.5). Thirteen infants required 27 RCC transfusions. Autologous UCB could be used for only five (18.5%) transfusions. CONCLUSION: The success rate of UCB collection after DCC for 1 minute is low. Autologous UCB meets less than one-fifth of transfusion requirements. Hence, autologous UCB transfusion is not a workable option in preterm infants.

Routine monitoring of gastric residual for prevention of necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Routine monitoring of gastric residual in preterm infants on gavage feeds is a common practice that is used to guide initiation and advancement of feeds. Some literature suggests that an increase in/or an altered gastric residual may be predictive of necrotising enterocolitis. Withholding monitoring of gastric residual may take away the early indicator and thus may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis. However, routine monitoring of gastric residual as a guide, in the absence of uniform standards, may lead to unnecessary delay in initiation and advancement of feeds and delay in reaching full enteral feeds. This in turn may increase the duration of parenteral nutrition and central venous line usage, increasing their complications. Delay in achieving full enteral feeds increases the risk of extrauterine growth restriction and neurodevelopmental impairment. OBJECTIVES: • To assess the efficacy and safety of routine monitoring of gastric residual versus no monitoring of gastric residual in preterm infants• To assess the efficacy and safety of routine monitoring of gastric residual based on two different criteria for interrupting feeds or decreasing feed volume in preterm infantsWe planned to undertake subgroup analysis based on gestational age (≤ 27 weeks, 28 weeks to 31 weeks, ≥ 32 weeks), birth weight (< 1000 g, 1000 g to 1499 g, ≥ 1500 g), small for gestational age versus appropriate for gestational age infants (classified using birth weight relative to the reference population), type of feed the infant is receiving (human milk or formula milk), and frequency of monitoring of gastric residual (before every feed, before every third feed, etc.) (see "Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity"). SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 19 February 2018), Embase (1980 to 19 February 2018), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 19 February 2018). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared routine monitoring of gastric residual versus no monitoring or two different criteria of gastric residual to interrupt feeds in preterm infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported the risk ratio and the risk difference for dichotomous data, and the mean difference for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomised controlled trials with a total of 141 preterm infants met the inclusion criteria for the comparison of routine monitoring versus no monitoring of gastric residual in preterm infants. Both trials were done in infants with birth weight < 1500 g.Routine monitoring of gastric residual may have little or no effect on the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis (risk ratio (RR) 3.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 18.77; participants = 141; studies = 2; low-quality evidence). Routine monitoring may increase the risk of feed interruption episodes (RR 2.07, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.07; participants = 141; studies = 2; low-quality evidence); the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 3 (95% CI 2 to 6).Routine monitoring of gastric residual may increase time taken to establish full enteral feeds (mean difference (MD) 3.92, 95% CI 2.06 to 5.77 days; participants = 141; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), time taken to regain birth weight (MD 1.70, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.39 days; participants = 80; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), and number of total parenteral nutrition days (MD 3.29, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.92 days; participants = 141; studies = 2; low-quality evidence).We are uncertain as to the effect of routine monitoring of gastric residual on other outcomes such as incidence of surgical necrotising enterocolitis, extrauterine growth restriction at discharge, parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease, duration of central venous line (CVL) usage, incidence of invasive infection, mortality before discharge, and duration of hospital stay. We found no data for outcomes such as aspiration pneumonia, gastroesophageal reflux, growth measures following discharge, and neurodevelopmental outcome.Only one trial with 87 preterm infants met the inclusion criteria for the comparison of using two different criteria of gastric residual to interrupt feeds while monitoring gastric residual. The trial was done in infants with birth weight of 1500 to 2000 g. We are uncertain as to the effect of using two different criteria of gastric residual on outcomes such as incidence of necrotising enterocolitis or surgical necrotising enterocolitis, time to establish full enteral feeds, time to regain birth weight, number of total parenteral nutrition days, number of infants experiencing feed interruption episodes, extrauterine growth restriction at discharge, parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease, incidence of invasive infection, and mortality before discharge (very low quality evidence). We found no data on duration of CVL usage, aspiration pneumonia, gastroesophageal reflux, duration of hospital stay, growth measures following discharge, and neurodevelopmental outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Review authors found insufficient evidence as to whether routine monitoring of gastric residual reduces the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis because trial results are imprecise. Low-quality evidence suggests that routine monitoring of gastric residual increases the risk of feed interruption episodes, increases the time taken to reach full enteral feeds and to regain birth weight, and increases the number of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) days.Available data are insufficient to comment on other major outcomes such as incidence of invasive infection, parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease, mortality before discharge, extrauterine growth restriction at discharge, number of CVL days, and duration of hospital stay. Further randomised controlled trials are warranted to provide more precise estimates of the effects of routine monitoring of gastric residual on important outcomes, especially necrotising enterocolitis, in preterm infants.

Re-feeding versus discarding gastric residuals to improve growth in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Routine monitoring of gastric residuals in preterm infants on gavage feeds is a common practice in many neonatal intensive care units and is used to guide the initiation and advancement of feeds. No guidelines or consensus is available on whether to re-feed or discard the aspirated gastric residuals. Although re-feeding gastric residuals may replace partially digested milk, gastrointestinal enzymes, hormones, and trophic substances that aid in digestion and promote gastrointestinal motility and maturation, re-feeding abnormal residuals may result in emesis, necrotising enterocolitis, or sepsis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of re-feeding compared to discarding gastric residuals in preterm infants. The allocation should have been started in the first week of life and should have been continued at least until the baby reached full enteral feeds. The investigator could have chosen to discard the gastric residual in the re-feeding group, if the gastric residual quality was not satisfactory. However, the criteria for discarding gastric residual should have been predefined.To conduct subgroup analysis based on gestational age (≤ 27 weeks, 28 weeks to 31 weeks, ≥ 32 weeks), birth weight (< 1000 g, 1000 g to 1499 g, ≥ 1500 g), type of milk (human milk or formula milk), quality of the gastric residual (fresh milk, curded milk, or bile-stained gastric residual), volume of gastric residual replaced (total volume, 50% of the volume, volume of the next feed, or prespecified volume, irrespective of the volume of the aspirate, e.g. 2 mL, 3 mL), and whether the volume of gastric residual that is re-fed is included in or excluded from the volume of the next feed (see "Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity"). SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 19 February 2018), Embase (1980 to 19 February 2018), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 19 February 2018). We also searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared re-feeding versus discarding gastric residuals in preterm infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data, and the mean difference for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We found one eligible trial that included 72 preterm infants. This trial was not blinded.We are uncertain as to the effect of re-feeding gastric residual on efficacy outcomes such as time to regain birth weight (mean difference (MD) 0.40 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.89 to 3.69 days; very low quality evidence), time to reach enteral feeds ≥ 120 mL/kg/d (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.33 days; very low quality evidence), number of infants with extrauterine growth restriction at discharge (risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.34; very low quality evidence), duration of total parenteral nutrition (MD -0.30 days, 95% CI -2.07 to 1.47 days; very low quality evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -25.27 to 21.47 days; very low quality evidence).Similarly, we are uncertain as to the effect of re-feeding gastric residual on safety outcomes such as incidence of stage 2 or 3 necrotising enterocolitis and/or spontaneous intestinal perforation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.04; very low quality evidence), number of episodes of feed interruption lasting ≥ 12 hours (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.52; very low quality evidence), or mortality before discharge (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.85; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain as to the effect of re-feeding gastric residual in the subgroups of human milk-fed and formula-fed infants. We found no data on other outcomes such as linear and head growth during hospital stay, postdischarge growth, number of infants with parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found only limited data from one small unblinded trial on the efficacy and safety of re-feeding gastric residuals in preterm infants. The quality of evidence was low to very low. Hence, available evidence is insufficient to support or refute re-feeding of gastric residuals in preterm infants. A large, randomised controlled trial is needed to provide data of sufficient quality and precision to inform policy and practice.

High versus standard volume enteral feeds to promote growth in preterm or low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Breast milk alone, given at standard recommended volumes (150 to 180 mL/kg/d), is not adequate to meet the protein, energy, and other nutrient requirements of growing preterm or low birth weight infants. One strategy that may be used to address these potential nutrient deficits is to give infants enteral feeds in excess of 200 mL/kg/d ('high-volume' feeds). This approach may increase nutrient uptake and growth rates, but concerns include that high-volume enteral feeds may cause feed intolerance, gastro-oesophageal reflux, aspiration pneumonia, necrotising enterocolitis, or complications related to fluid overload, including patent ductus arteriosus and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect on growth and safety of feeding preterm or low birth weight infants with high (> 200 mL/kg/d) versus standard (≤ 200 mL/kg/d) volume of enteral feeds. Infants in intervention and control groups should have received the same type of milk (breast milk, formula, or both), the same fortification or micronutrient supplements, and the same enteral feeding regimen (bolus, continuous) and rate of feed volume advancement.To conduct subgroup analyses based on type of milk (breast milk vs formula), gestational age or birth weight category of included infants (very preterm or VLBW vs preterm or LBW), presence of intrauterine growth restriction (using birth weight relative to the reference population as a surrogate), and income level of the country in which the trial was conducted (low or middle income vs high income) (see 'Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity'). SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Neonatal standard search strategy, which included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1946 to November 2016); Embase (1974 to November 2016); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to November 2016), as well as conference proceedings, previous reviews, and trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared high-volume versus standard-volume enteral feeds for preterm or low birth weight infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data, and the mean difference for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals. . We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level via the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We found one eligible trial that included 64 infants. This trial was not blinded. Analysis showed a higher rate of weight gain in the high-volume feeds group: mean difference 6.20 g/kg/d (95% confidence interval 2.71 to 9.69). There was no increase in the risk of feed intolerance or necrotising enterocolitis with high-volume feeds, but 95% confidence intervals around these estimates were wide. We assessed the quality of evidence for these outcomes as 'low' or 'very low' because of imprecision of the estimates of effect and concern about risk of bias due to lack of blinding in the included trial. Trial authors provided no data on other outcomes, including gastro-oesophageal reflux, aspiration pneumonia, necrotising enterocolitis, patent ductus arteriosus, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, or long-term growth and neurodevelopment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found only very limited data from one small unblinded trial on the effects of high-volume feeds on important outcomes for preterm or low birth weight infants. The quality of evidence is low to very low. Hence, available evidence is insufficient to support or refute high-volume enteral feeds in preterm or low birth weight infants. A large, pragmatic randomised controlled trial is needed to provide data of sufficient quality and precision to inform policy and practice.

Comparison of Two Low-cost Methods of Cooling Neonates with Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy.

Background: Several low-cost methods are used in resource-limited settings to provide therapeutic hypothermia in asphyxiated neonates. There is inadequate data about their efficacy and safety. This is a retrospective study comparing two low-cost cooling methods-frozen gel packs (FGP) and phase changing material (PCM). Results: There were 23 babies in FGP and 45 babies in the PCM group. Induction time was significantly shorter with FGP than PCM (45 vs. 90 minutes; p -value < 0.001). Proportion of temperature readings outside the target range was significantly higher (9.8% vs. 3.8%; p -value < 0.001) and fluctuation of core body temperature was wider (standard deviation of target temperature 0.4 °C vs. 0.28 °C) in the FGP group, compared with PCM group. Conclusion: Both FGP and PCM are effective and safe, comparable with standard servo-controlled cooling equipment. PCM has the advantage of better maintenance of target temperature with less nursing input, when compared with FGP.

Changing Patterns of Organisms Causing Neonatal Sepsis and Their Antimicrobial Sensitivity Profile in a Tertiary Center - A Prospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the profile of organisms causing neonatal sepsis and their antibiotic susceptibility pattern in recent years. METHODS: In this prospective study, authors included neonates with blood culture proven sepsis. Antibiotic resistance patterns that were identified were extended spectrum ß-lactamase, AmpC ß-lactamase and possible carbapenamase producer. Xpert CARBA-R test was performed to identify genes causing carbapenem resistance. RESULTS: There were 210 neonates with 216 episodes of blood culture proven sepsis. Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 85) and Escherichia coli (n = 19) were the most common gram-negative organisms. Coagulase negative Staphylococcus (n = 11) and Staphylococcus aureus (n = 7) were the most common gram positive organisms. There were 17 episodes of fungal sepsis with Candida albicans (n = 6) being the most common. Sixty-five out of 216 (30%) organisms were multidrug resistant. Among the Klebsiella isolates, 32/85 (37.6%) were possible carbapenamase producers. Xpert CARBA-R performed for 13 infants showed that all were positive for New Delhi metallo-ß-lactamase. Among the 19 Escherichia coli, 10/19 (37.6%) were multidrug resistant and 1/19 (5.3%) was a possible carbapenamase producer. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found a significant increase in New Delhi metallo-ß-lactamase positive Klebsiella pneumoniae causing neonatal sepsis in last three years. Regular monitoring of resistance patterns and prudent use of antimicrobials are imperative in regulating the shadow pandemic of multi-drug resistant neonatal sepsis.

LATCH Score for Identification and Correction of Breastfeeding Problems - A Prospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine early breastfeeding problems using LATCH tool, and analyze the impact of breastfeeding supportive measures in improving LATCH score. METHODS: This prospective study included all inborn term neonates born at our center between September, 2019 and March, 2020. Breastfeeding problems were identified by LATCH score at 6-12h after birth, and were addressed by the study team providing breastfeeding support, education and training to mothers. LATCH scores were reassessed at 24-48h. RESULTS: Among 400 mother-infant dyads, 399 (99.7%) required support to position the neonate, 190 (47.5%) had poor latch and 52 (13%) had nipple problems during initial assessment. Breastfeeding supportive measures improved the LATCH score [median (IQR) 7 (5,8) vs 8 (8,8) at 6-12 and 24-48 hours, respectively; P <0.001], and reduced the number of mothers with LATCH score <8 [288 (72%) vs 63 (15.8%); P <0.001]. CONCLUSION: LATCH is a comprehensive yet simple tool to identify breastfeeding problems. Given the high incidence of breastfeeding problems during early postpartum period, systematic assessment of breastfeeding related problems using LATCH tool can help timely intervention and improvement in the breastfeeding technique.

Multisystem inflammatory disease in neonates (MIS-N) due to maternal COVID-19.

Multisystem inflammatory disease in neonates (MIS-N) is a disease of immune dysregulation presenting in the newborn period. Thouvgh its etiopathogenesis is proposed to be similar to multisystem inflammatory disease in Children (MIS-C), the exact pathophysiology is largely unknown as of present. The definition of MIS-N is contentious. The evidence for its incidence, the clinical features, profile of raised inflammatory markers, treatment strategies and outcomes stem from case reports, case series and cohort studies with small sample sizes. Though the incidence of MIS-N in severe acute respiratory syndrome caused by the coronavirus CoVID-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected asymptomatic neonates is low, its incidence in symptomatic neonates is relatively higher. Further, amongst the neonates who are treated as MIS-N, the mortality rate is high. The review also evaluates the various other unresolved aspects of MIS-N from limited published literature and identifies knowledge gaps which could be areas of future research.

Placental Transfusion Strategies in Preterm Infants in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Placental transfusion strategies in preterm newborns have not been evaluated in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The objective of this systematic review was to compare placental transfusion strategies in preterm newborns in LMICs, including delayed cord clamping (DCC) for various time intervals, DCC until cord pulsations stop, umbilical cord milking, and immediate cord clamping (ICC). METHODS: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched from inception. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Two authors independently extracted data for Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) if more than 3 interventions reported an outcome or a pairwise meta-analysis was utilized. RESULTS: Among newborns <34 weeks of gestation, NMA of 9 RCTs could not rule out benefit or harm for survival from DCC 30-60 s compared to ICC: relative risk (RR) (95% credible interval) 0.96 (0.78-1.12), moderate certainty, or any included strategy compared to each other (low to very low certainty). Among late preterm newborns, DCC 120 s might be associated with improved survival: RR (95% confidence interval) 1.11 (1.01-1.22), very low certainty. We could not detect differences in the risk of intraventricular hemorrhage grade > II and bronchopulmonary dysplasia for any included intervention (low to very low certainty). DCC 60 s and 120 s might improve the hematocrit level among all preterm newborns (very low certainty), and DCC 45 s may decrease the risk of receipt of inotropes among newborns <34 weeks of gestation (low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In LMICs, DCC for 60 s and 120 s might improve hematocrit level in preterm newborns, and DCC for 45 s may decrease the risk of receipt of inotropes in newborns <34 weeks, with no conclusive effect on survival.

Clinical decision thresholds for surfactant administration in preterm infants: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: The ideal threshold at which surfactant administration in preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is most beneficial is contentious. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the optimal clinical criteria to guide surfactant administration in preterm neonates with RDS. Methods: The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022309433). Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched from inception till 16th May 2023. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. A Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluating 33 interventions was performed. The primary outcome was requirement of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) within 7 days of life. Findings: 58 RCTs were included. In preterm neonates ≤30 weeks after adjusting for the confounding factor of modality of surfactant administration, an arterial alveolar oxygen tension ratio (aAO2) <0.36 (FiO2: 37-55%) was ranked the best threshold for decreasing the risk of IMV, very low certainty. Further, surfactant administration at an FiO2 40-45% possibly decreased mortality compared to rescue treatment when respiratory failure was diagnosed, certainty very low. The reasonable inference that could be drawn from these findings is that surfactant administration may be considered in preterm neonates of ≤30 weeks' with RDS requiring an FiO2 ≥ 40%. There was insufficient evidence for the comparison of FiO2 thresholds: 30% vs. 40%. The evidence was sparse for surfactant administration guided by lung ultrasound. For the sub-group >30 weeks, nebulized surfactant administration at an FiO2 < 30% possibly increased the risk of IMV compared to Intubate-Surfactant-Extubate at FiO2 < 30% and 40%, and less invasive surfactant administration at FiO2 40%, certainty very low. Interpretation: Surfactant administration may be considered in preterm neonates of ≤30 weeks' with RDS if the FiO2 requirement is ≥40%. Future trials are required comparing lower FiO2 thresholds of 30% vs. 40% and that guided by lung ultrasound. Funding: None.

Role of advanced (magnetic resonance) neuroimaging and clinical outcomes in neonatal strokes: Experience from tertiary care center.

Neonatal strokes constitute a major cause of pediatric mortality and morbidity. Neuroimaging helps in its diagnosis as well as prognostication. However, advanced imaging, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), carries multiple challenges. Limited data exists in the literature on imaging-based predictors of neurological outcomes in neonatal stroke in the Indian population. In this study, we reviewed our available data on neonatal stroke patients between 2015 and 2020 for clinico-radiological patterns. During this period, 17 neonatal strokes were admitted and the majority were term births with a slight male preponderance. Seizures and encephalopathy were the most common presentation. Multiple maternal risk factors such as gestational diabetes, meconium-stained liquor, APLA syndrome, fever, deranged coagulation profile, oligohydramnios, cord prolapse, and non-progressive labor were seen. Cardiac abnormalities were seen in only less than half of these patients with the most common finding being atrial septal defects (ASD). Transcranial ultrasound was performed in eight neonates and the pick-up rate of ultrasound was poor. MR imaging showed large infarcts in 11 patients. The MCA territory was most commonly involved. Interestingly, five neonates had venous thrombosis with three showing it in addition to arterial thrombosis. Associated ictal, as well as Wallerian changes, were noted in 10. Although large territorial infarcts were the most common pattern, non-contrast MR angiography did not show major vessel occlusion in these cases. Outcomes were fairly good and only three patients had a residual motor deficit at 1 year. No recurrence of stroke was seen in any of the neonates.

Dextrose Gel for Neonates at Risk With Asymptomatic Hypoglycemia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hypoglycemia occurs in 5% to 15% of neonates in the first few days. A significant proportion requires admission for intravenous fluids. Dextrose gel may reduce admissions and mother-infant separation. We aimed to study the utility of dextrose gel in reducing the need for intravenous fluids. METHODS: This stratified randomized control trial included at-risk infants with asymptomatic hypoglycemia. Study populations were stratified into 3 categories: small for gestational age (SGA) and intrauterine growth-restriction (IUGR), infants of diabetic mothers (IDM) and large for gestational age (LGA), and late preterm (LPT) neonates. Intervention group received dextrose gel followed by breastfeeding, and the control group (CG) received only breastfeeding. RESULTS: Among 629 at-risk infants, 291 (46%) developed asymptomatic hypoglycemia; 147 (50.4%) in the dextrose gel group (DGG) and 144 (49.6%) in CG. There were 97, 98, and 96 infants in SGA/IUGR, IDM/LGA, and LPT categories, respectively. Treatment failure in the DGG was 17 (11.5%) compared to 58 (40.2%) in CG, with a risk ratio of 0.28 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.46; P < .001). Treatment failure was significantly less in DGG in all 3 categories: SGA/IUGR, IDM/LGA, and LPT with a risk ratio of 0.29 (95% CI:0.13-0.67), 0.31 (95% CI:0.14-0.66) and 0.24 (95% CI:0.09-0.66), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Dextrose gel reduces the need for intravenous fluids in at-risk neonates with asymptomatic hypoglycemia in the first 48 hours of life.