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.

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.

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.

Systematic rotation versus continuous application of 'nasal prongs' or 'nasal mask' in preterm infants on nCPAP: a randomized controlled trial.

To compare whether alternate rotation of nasal mask with nasal prongs every 8 h as compared to continuous use of either interface alone decreases the incidence of nasal injury in preterm infants receiving nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (nCPAP). This was an open-label, three-arm, stratified randomized controlled trial where infants < 35 weeks receiving nCPAP were randomized into three groups using two different nasal interfaces (continuous prongs group, continuous mask group, and rotation group). All infants were assessed for nasal injury six hours post-removal of nCPAP using grading suggested by Fischer et al. The nursing care was uniform across all three groups. Intention-to-treat analysis was done. Fifty-seven infants were enrolled, with nineteen in each group. The incidence of nasal injury was 42.1% vs. 47.4% vs. 68.4% in the rotation group, continuous mask, and continuous prongs groups, respectively (P = 0.228). On adjusted analysis (gestational age, birth weight, and duration of nCPAP therapy), the incidence of nasal injury was significantly less in the rotation group as compared to continuous prongs group (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR], 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.10 [0.01-0.69], P = 0.02) and a trend towards lesser nasal injury as compared to continuous mask group (AOR, 95% CI; 0.15 [0.02-1.08], P = 0.06). However, there was no significant difference in incidence of nasal injuries between continuous prongs versus continuous mask group (P = 0.60). The need for surfactant, nCPAP failure rate, duration of nCPAP, and common neonatal co-morbidities were similar across all three groups.   Conclusion: Systematic rotation of nasal mask with nasal prongs significantly reduced nasal injury among preterm infants on nCPAP as compared to continuous use of nasal prongs alone without affecting nCPAP failure rate.   Trial registration: CTRI/2019/01/017320, registered on 31/01/2019. What is Known: • Use of nasal mask as an interface for nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure decreases nasal injury as compared to nasal prongs. What is New: • Rotation of nasal prongs and nasal mask interfaces alternately every 8 h may reduce the nasal injury even further as compared to either interface alone.

800 IU versus 400 IU per day of vitamin D3 in term breastfed infants: a randomized controlled trial from an LMIC.

This open-label, block-randomized controlled trial compared the effect of 800 IU/day and 400 IU/day of oral vitamin D3 supplementation in reducing vitamin D insufficiency (VDI) among healthy-term breastfed infants at 14 weeks of postnatal age. All eligible infants were randomized to receive either 800 or 400 IU/day of oral vitamin D3 (starting within the first week until 14 weeks). The primary outcome was the proportion of infants with VDI (25-OH-D < 20 ng/ml) at 14 weeks. Secondary outcomes were vitamin D deficiency (VDD, < 12 ng/ml), severe VDD (< 5 ng/ml), anthropometry, biochemical or clinical rickets, and any adverse events related to vitamin D toxicity (VDT). Among 102 enrolled infants, the distribution of baseline variables (including cord 25-OH-D levels; 13.0 versus 14.2 ng/ml) was similar in both groups. On intention-to-treat analysis, the proportions of infants with VDI at 14 weeks were significantly lower in the 800 IU group compared to those in the 400 IU group [24% versus 55%; RR 0.44; 95% CI: 0.25-0.76]. The proportions of infants with elevated parathormone (6% versus 26.5%; p = 0.012) and severe VDD (0% versus 12.2%; p = 0.033) were significantly lower in the 800 IU group. Clinical rickets developed in three (6.2%) infants in the 400 IU group. No infant developed VDT.      Conclusions: Daily oral supplementation with 800 IU of vitamin D3 resulted in an almost 50% reduction in the proportion of infants with VDI and prevented the occurrence of severe VDD at 14 weeks of age compared to 400 IU with no evidence of vitamin D toxicity.     Trial Registration: Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2019/02/017374). What is Known: • Breastfeeding is the ideal source of nutrition for healthy-term breastfed infants; however, vitamin D content of breastmilk is suboptimal. • AAP recommends daily oral supplementation of 400 IU of vitamin D to all healthy-term breastfed infants; however, trials from high-income countries support insufficiency of this dose in maintaining serum 25-OH-D levels >20 ng/ml with no such information from low-middle-income countries. What is New: • 800 IU/day of oral vitamin D3 supplementation among term breastfed infants significantly reduces vitamin D insufficiency at 14 weeks' age as compared to the recommended dose of 400 IU/day. • This higher supplemental dose is safe with no evidence of vitamin D toxicity.

Risk Factors for Periventricular Leukomalacia in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and GRADE-Based Assessment of Certainty of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: We analyzed the certainty of evidence (CoE) for risk factors of periventricular leukomalacia (PVL) in preterm neonates, a common morbidity of prematurity. METHODS: Medline, CENTRAL, Embase, and CINAHL were searched. Cohort and case-control studies and randomised randomized controlled trials were included. Data extraction was performed in duplicate. A random random-effects meta-analysis was utilizedused. CoE was evaluated as per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-six studies evaluating 95 risk factors for PVL were included. Of the 2,509,507 neonates assessed, 16,569 were diagnosed with PVL. Intraventricular hemorrhage [adjusted odds ratio: 3.22 (2.52-4.12)] had moderate CoE for its association with PVL. Other factors such as hypocarbia, chorioamnionitis, PPROM >48 hour, multifetal pregnancy reduction, antenatal indomethacin, lack of antenatal steroids, perinatal asphyxia, ventilation, shock/hypotension, patent ductus arteriosus requiring surgical ligation, late-onset circulatory collapse, sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, and neonatal surgery showed significant association with PVL after adjustment for confounders (CoE: very low to low). Amongst the risk factors associated with mother placental fetal (MPF) triad, there was paucity of literature related to genetic predisposition and defective placentation. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the strength of association between invasive ventilation and PVL decreased over time (P < 0.01), suggesting progress in ventilation strategies. Limited studies had evaluated diffuse PVL. CONCLUSION: Despite decades of research, our findings indicate that the CoE is low to very low for most of the commonly attributed risk factors of PVL. Future studies should evaluate genetic predisposition and defective placentation in the MPF triad contributing to PVL. Studies evaluating exclusively diffuse PVL are warranted.

Delivery Room Interventions for Hypothermia in Preterm Neonates: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Importance: Prevention of hypothermia in the delivery room is a cost-effective, high-impact intervention to reduce neonatal mortality, especially in preterm neonates. Several interventions for preventing hypothermia in the delivery room exist, of which the most beneficial is currently unknown. Objective: To identify the delivery room thermal care intervention that can best reduce neonatal hypothermia and improve clinical outcomes for preterm neonates born at 36 weeks' gestation or less. Data Sources: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception to November 5, 2020. Study Selection: Randomized and quasi-randomized clinical trials of thermal care interventions in the delivery room for preterm neonates were included. Peer-reviewed abstracts and studies published in non-English language were also included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data from the included trials were extracted in duplicate using a structured proforma. A network meta-analysis with bayesian random-effects model was used for data synthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were core body temperature and incidence of moderate to severe hypothermia on admission or within the first 2 hours of life. Secondary outcomes were incidence of hyperthermia, major brain injury, and mortality before discharge. The 9 thermal interventions evaluated were (1) plastic bag or plastic wrap covering the torso and limbs with the head uncovered or covered with a cloth cap; (2) plastic cap covering the head; (3) skin-to-skin contact; (4) thermal mattress; (5) plastic bag or plastic wrap with a plastic cap; (6) plastic bag or plastic wrap along with use of a thermal mattress; (7) plastic bag or plastic wrap along with heated humidified gas for resuscitation or for initiating respiratory support in the delivery room; (8) plastic bag or plastic wrap along with an incubator for transporting from the delivery room; and (9) routine care, including drying and covering the body with warm blankets, with or without a cloth cap. Results: Of the 6154 titles and abstracts screened, 34 studies that enrolled 3688 neonates were analyzed. Compared with routine care alone, plastic bag or wrap with a thermal mattress (mean difference [MD], 0.98 °C; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.60-1.36 °C), plastic cap (MD, 0.83 °C; 95% CrI, 0.28-1.38 °C), plastic bag or wrap with heated humidified respiratory gas (MD, 0.76 °C; 95% CrI, 0.38-1.15 °C), plastic bag or wrap with a plastic cap (MD, 0.62 °C; 95% CrI, 0.37-0.88 °C), thermal mattress (MD, 0.62 °C; 95% CrI, 0.33-0.93 °C), and plastic bag or wrap (MD, 0.56 °C; 95% CrI, 0.44-0.69 °C) were associated with greater core body temperature. Certainty of evidence was moderate for 5 interventions and low for plastic bag or wrap with a thermal mattress. When compared with routine care alone, a plastic bag or wrap with heated humidified respiratory gas was associated with less risk of major brain injury (risk ratio, 0.23; 95% CrI, 0.03-0.67; moderate certainty of evidence) and a plastic bag or wrap with a plastic cap was associated with decreased risk of mortality (risk ratio, 0.19; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.66; low certainty of evidence). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study indicate that most thermal care interventions in the delivery room for preterm neonates were associated with improved core body temperature (with moderate certainty of evidence). Specifically, use of a plastic bag or wrap with a plastic cap or with heated humidified gas was associated with lower risk of major brain injury and mortality (with low to moderate certainty of evidence).

Frequency of ventilator circuit changes to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia in neonates and children-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of different frequencies of ventilator circuit changes in neonates and children through a systematic review and meta-analysis. INTERVENTIONS: (1) "No routine change of ventilator circuit (unless visibly soiled)" versus "routine change at any fixed interval"; (2) routine change of circuit at "less frequent" versus "more frequent" intervals. OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes were VAP rate (number of VAP episodes per 1000 ventilator-days) and all-cause mortality before discharge. METHODS: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and CINAHL were systematically searched from inception till November 3, 2020. Two authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. Data were synthesized using fixed effects model. GRADE was used to assess certainty of evidence (CoE). RESULTS: We identified six studies enrolling 768 participants evaluating circuit changes at two fixed intervals. Meta-analysis of studies on circuit changes "once in less than 7 days" versus "once weekly" showed no difference in VAP rate (risk ratio: 0.83 [0.38-1.81]; one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 0.94 [0.49-1.81]; two before-after studies) or mortality before discharge (0.67 [0.34-1.3]; one RCT and 1.01 [0.63-1.64]; two before-after studies). CoE was very low. Less frequent circuit changes reduced health-care costs. No study evaluating "circuit changes only when visibly soiled" versus "circuit changes at a fixed interval" was identified. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence to suggest that ventilator circuits can be safely left unchanged until visibly soiled in neonates and children. Extending circuit changes interval to "once weekly" may not increase VAP rate (CoE-very low) and reduces healthcare costs.

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.

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.

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.