Cpap Nicu 2day Old Breastfed Baby Formula Feeding Tube

Forepart Pediatr. 2019; 7: 190.

Transition From Nasogastric Tube to Oral Feeding: The Part of Parental Guided Responsive Feeding

Iris Morag

¹Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, State of israel

^twoChaim Sheba Medical Center, The Edmond and Lily Safra Children Hospital, Ramat Gan, State of israel

Yedidya Hendel

ⁱⁱⁱSection of Psychology, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

⁴The Gonda Multidisciplinary Encephalon Research Heart, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Dalia Karol

⁵Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Ronny Geva

³Department of Psychology, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

⁴The Gonda Multidisciplinary Brain Enquiry Center, Bar Ilan Academy, Ramat Gan, Israel

Strauss Tzipi

^oneSackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, State of israel

²Chaim Sheba Medical Eye, The Edmond and Lily Safra Children Infirmary, Ramat Gan, Israel

Received 2018 Dec 17; Accustomed 2019 Apr 24.

Abstract

Groundwork and Objective: Strategies to transition preterm infants from tube to oral feeding vary greatly and the transition may take days to weeks. The study objective was to evaluate the upshot of parental guided responsive feeding (PGRF) on this transition.

Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial on infants built-in at <32 weeks gestation. The PGRF intervention was performed by parents, and included feeding intervals and volumes which were guided by the infants' behavioral cues of hunger and satiety. If a minimum book was not taken orally, an intermediate volume was supplemented via nasogastric tube. The control grouping was traditionally fed (TF), with pre-planned volumes of intake and at given scheduled intervals.

Results: The study comprised 67 infants (PGRF 32, TF 35). PGRF infants reached total oral feeding inside less days (median ii vs. eight days, p = 0.001), at an earlier historic period (median 34.28 vs. 35.14 weeks, p < 0.001), returned to baseline weight gain at 35 weeks (1.77 ± 0.70 vs. ane.25 ± 0.63 k/kg/day, p = 0.002), were discharged before (36.34 ± 0.6 vs. 36.86 ± 0.9 weeks, p = 0.001), were more likely to be fed by their parents (p < 0.001), and experienced less apnea/bradycardia events at 34 weeks (median 3.5 vs. 9 per week p = 0.047) compared to the TF infants. The regression model demonstrated that contained variables predicted 43.seven% of the variance of time to full oral feeding [F _{(ix, 65)} = iv.84 p < 0.001]. The simply significant variable was feeding group (B = −vi.43 p < 0.001); The PGRF infants were more probable to reach full oral feeding earlier.

Conclusion: PGRF is safe, and associated with brusk-term advantages, higher parental engagement, and earlier belch.

Clinical Trial Registration: Identifier: SHEBA-12-9574-IM-CTIL; "Adjusted Individual Oral Feeding for Improving Brusque and Long Term Outcomes of Preterm Infants."

Keywords: preterm baby, oral feeding, responsive feeding, weight proceeds, nasogastric tube

Introduction

Physiologically stable preterm infants, are generally transitioned from tube feeding to oral feeding at 32–34 weeks gestational age. This transition may have days to weeks (1). Success in this transition, defined every bit acceptable intake for growth and maintenance of physiologic stability, depends on several factors: (a) the infant'due south neurological and physiological maturity, namely, the baby'southward ability to remain engaged in feeding, organize oral-motor functioning, co-ordinate swallowing with breathing, and maintain physiologic stability (2, 3); (b) the caregiver's ability to co-regulate the infant during feeding, namely, to timely recognize and respond to the infant's behavioral and physiological cues, aiming to forestall physiological de-compensation and repeated stress (1); and (c) the NICU'due south approach toward feeding. The NICU's approach toward feeding tin be varied among hospitals. In many NICUs, the transition to oral feeding is regarded as a simple technical task, and is ofttimes delegated to the least experienced professional person, such as a new nurse or even a volunteer (1). Moreover, traditional feeding (TF), which is as well known as volume-driven feeding, is still commonly adept in many NICUs. TF involves administering a pre-planned volume of nutrient at given scheduled intervals, regardless of infant cues. In guild to successfully administer a pre-planned volume, various maneuvers are used, such as twisting the canteen or moving the nipple in and out (4). Such strategies frequently disregard the infant's coordinated feeding behaviors (5, 6), and overlook behavioral cues, since the master goal of TF is to cease the pre-planned book of food. Every bit a result of this feeding method, repeated desaturations and aspirations may occur, resulting in physiologic decompensation and repeated stress (7, eight). These repeated stressful experiences during the time a preterm infant learns to feed have been associated with a long-lasting aversion toward feeding. This disfavor to feeding has been demonstrated to last until those preterm infants attain vi years of historic period (iv, ix–xiv).

Recently, a new arroyo to feeding preterm infants, known as a "responsive," "sensitive," "infant-driven," or "cue-based" feeding, has been studied (xv). According to this approach, the caregiver'southward ability to understand and answer to the babe'due south behavioral communication, especially during feeding, plays a key function in the baby's ability to feed finer. When the infant'south behavior is perceived equally meaningful (i.east., having communicative intent), the focus changes from a volume-driven arroyo to a co-regulated approach, in which the baby guides the caregiver (x). Theoretically, feeding skills that develop at an babe's own pace may exist associated with better self-regulation during feeding and this will facilitate oral feeding progression (7). This responsive method of feeding too enhances parents' experiences of nurturing their child and can create a more enjoyable, pleasurable, and satisfying experience for both infant and parent (seven, 10). A recent Cochrane meta-analysis, which enrolled 9 randomized controlled trials (north = 593), reported on early on neonatal outcomes among preterm infants subjected to responsive feeding vs. TF protocols (16). Infants subjected to the responsive feeding protocol achieved full oral feeding significantly earlier, (mean difference −5.53, 95% CI −half dozen.80 to −4.25 days) (17, eighteen) than those fed by TF. Infants fed with responsive feeding experienced slower weight proceeds (mean difference −1.36, 95% CI −2.44 to −0.29 g/kg/solar day) (xviii–22) but were discharged dwelling house earlier than those fed by TF (hateful difference −0.48, 95% CI −0.94 to −0.01 weeks) (viii, 23). The strategies used in these trials to acquit responsive feeding varied. While near trials used infant cues to initiate and cease feedings, the main variation occurred in how and if book was supplemented after responsive feeding. Specifically, in some studies, if a minimum amount of volume was not taken by oral responsive feeding, a predetermined volume was supplemented by tube feeing. In contrast, in other studies, tube removal occurred upon randomization to responsive feeding and no minimum volume was set. We hypothesized that a modified responsive feeding intervention, which would include: (1) parents equally the population conducting the intervention, constituting a parental guided responsive feeding (PGRF); (2) timing and book of feeds dictated by the baby; and (iii) gradual weaning from tube feeding, in which an intermediate volume of food would be supplemented in infants that practise not reach a minimum intake, would consequence in a shortened duration to achieve full oral feeding, earlier discharge home, meliorate weight gain, less apneic episodes and higher parental omnipresence and engagement in feeding their infants.

PAtients and Methods

Inclusion Criteria

A randomized controlled trial was conducted from November 2013 through November 2016 in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of the Chaim Sheba Medical Center in Israel. Preterm infants born prior to 32 weeks of gestation, whose parents signed a written informed consent, were eligible for the report. Exclusion criteria included: nascence weight <10th percentile (19) periventricular leukomalacia or intraventricular hemorrhage grade ≥3 on caput ultrasound; necrotizing enterocolitis stage ≥2 (twenty); postnatal steroids; requirement for oxygen back up at 33 weeks gestational age (GA); surgery requiring full general anesthesia; and proven, suspected, or chronic diseases non associated with prematurity that may take affected the course of hospitalization.

Randomization

Parents of eligible infants, <33 weeks GA, were approached by one of the study neonatologists (I.Grand. or T.Southward.). Randomization was achieved by the parents taking a sealed opaque envelope from a box. Twins were stratified into the same study group. To ensure residue between the report groups, the envelopes were organized in groups of 8 with an allocation ratio of 1:1, in 10 different boxes numbered 1-10. Although the participants and medical squad were not blinded for the study arm assignment, they were blinded for the outcome measures. The report was approved by the Institutional Committee on Human Research and the NIH SHEBA-12-9574-IM-CTIL.

Settings

At this hospital, ~120 preterm infants are born at <32 weeks each year. Almost all infants are born in infirmary and are cared for by the same squad from nascency until discharge. The NICU is divided into four large rooms, with 10-15 infants in each. Parents are welcome to stay and participate in their infant's care throughout the 24-hour interval, except during nursing shift changes which occur iii times a day and have half an hour each time. Parents are provided with chairs and removable defunction for privacy. Virtually of the parent population live in close proximity to the hospital, resulting in at least ane parent beingness present daily.

Since 2012, the NICU has been transitioning to the Neonatal Individual Developmental Intendance and Assessment Program (NIDCAP), based on the Synactive theory proposed by Als (21, 22, 24). According to this theory, throughout their development, infants are biologically striving toward self-regulation of increasingly circuitous abilities. Caregivers can support this emerging competence by intently and knowledgeably responding to each private babe'due south autonomic neurophysiology, behavioral state, and motor (or movement) behavior, then that the infant remains functionally organized and self-regulated.

Transitioning to Oral Feeding

Gavage trophic feeding is usually initiated during the start twenty-four hour period of a preterm babe's life. Mothers' ain chest milk is prioritized. Since donor breast milk is not available in Israel, if breast milk is not bachelor, preterm baby formula is provided. Breast milk-fed preterm infants are supplemented with fortified human milk upon reaching 100 ml/kg/mean solar day of enteral feeding. The enteral feeding volume is increased past increments of 20–30 ml/kg/day, up to a total daily intake of 140–160 ml/kg/day. The traditional units' guidelines prior to the report catamenia were strict in terms of GA at initiation of oral feeding, intervals between feedings and taken book, so that direct breastfeeding could be initiated upon arrival to 33 weeks GA. Bottle feeding could be initiated at 34 weeks GA in infants who reach a minimal weight of 1750 grand and did non require invasive mechanical ventilation, intervals between feedings were 3 h and given volumes were 140–160 ml/kg/day divided into eight meals. The nasogastric tube was removed at the nurse's discretion, when the babe was perceived to be able to finish the canteen. Infants could be orally fed by parents or nurses. Feeding practices have not been changed in this NICU for more than than a decade. Discharge criteria from the NICU included: reaching 36 weeks GA, persistent weight gain, a minimal weight of 1.nine kg, stable temperature, no apneic episodes, and oral feeding power.

Study Intervention

Parents whose infants were randomized to the intervention group were asked to participate in a curt (up to 60 min) workshop conducted by i of the authors (I.K.), who is trained in NIDCAP. This workshop aimed to provide data and guidance for this intervention, based on current literature (run into Supplementary Data i) (10, 22, 25–28). The workshop introduced parents to the importance of keeping the transition to oral feeding as pleasurable as possible, and avoid intrusiveness, using their infant's cues for guidance. Parents were encouraged to initiate oral feedings inside a time span of 2–4 h when signs of hunger were noticed and to cease feedings when signs of satiety were noticed, regardless of the volume taken. Parents were reassured that if a minimum book was not taken, supplementation to 65–75% of the maximum would be given via a feeding tube, to prevent weight loss. The intervention started upon arrival to 34 weeks gestation. In order to avoid parental stress and frustration, we did not explicitly recommend parental presence during feedings, still the importance of consistency in caregiver- baby human relationship was discussed as role of sensitive intendance. The minimum required volume of feeding was ninety ml/kg/day, upwardly to a maximum of 180 ml/kg/24-hour interval, as calculated for six feedings over 24 h. If the infant was fed more frequently, adjustment and re-adding based on the aforementioned volumes were recommended. If the infant did not achieve a minimum corporeality per oral feed, or did not arouse afterwards iv h and no signs of hunger were recognized, an intermediate volume of 120 ml/kg/mean solar day over six feeds (twenty ml/kg/feed) was supplemented via nasogastric tube. The rationale for this unique strategy was to avert malnutrition in infants who did non accomplish a minimum feed, while yet assuasive a hunger-satiety cycle to develop. The intervention started at 34 weeks GA, as the NICU protocol did not allow for an earlier initiation of oral bottle feeding. The nasogastric tube was removed at the nurse'south discretion, when the infant was perceived to exist able to finish the minimum book from the canteen. During the outset 2 days of the intervention, if more than than iii h elapsed between feedings, blood glucose (dextrostix) was tested just prior to the next feeding in order to detect hypoglycemia. The intervention continued until the infant was discharged dwelling. A speech therapist, qualified in early infant feeding skills, was hired for the purpose of the written report. The speech therapist or the NIDCAP-trained investigator (I.M.) was in attendance during the showtime 24-hour interval of the intervention, and as needed subsequently. The study protocol, rationale, and the intervention medical orders were introduced to the medical teams (nurses and physicians) during a short presentation and so that when parents were not nowadays to feed, adherence to the technical parts of the protocol could be maintained (see Supplementary Datas 1, 2 for details of the workshop and the intervention).

Baseline Characteristics

The following data were documented: maternal historic period, income, bookish, and marital status, delivery mode, gestational historic period, gender, Apgar scores, Clinical Risk Alphabetize for Babies (CRIB Ii score), need for mechanical ventilation, duration of oxygen treatment, time needed to regain birth weight and days of intravenous infusion to and corporeality of breast milk and direct breastfeeding per mean solar day. Infants' medical data were collected from the computerized medical charts (MetaVision-MDSoft) using a specific information collection grade.

Consequence Measures

Our primary outcome was measured on the basis of the number of days needed to attain full oral feeding. In our unit, the feeding tube is removed upon the nurse's discretion, when the infant is perceived to be able to end a prescribed volume. If the feeding tube is removed, only then an infant does not swallow the prescribed book, then the tube is reinserted. Nosotros hypothesized that PGRF would be associated with an earlier progression to full oral feeding. Secondary outcomes and hypotheses included (a) decreased age at discharge as discharge timing is dictated, among other criteria by the power to orally feed; (b) improved modify in weight gain (measured every bit thousand/kg/mean solar day starting from prior to the intervention until the 36th weeks), as it allowed satiety hunger cycles to develop; (c) increment in percent of feedings conducted past parents, as the PGRF would result in more pleasurable feel; and d) less apneas and bradycardia events arising from cue-based interactions, due to better synchrony during feedings.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software, version 25. PGRF and TF infants were compared past independent sample t-test or Isle of mann Whitney test for continuous variables, or chi-square tests for chiselled ones. Multivariate analysis with Bonferroni correction was used to calculate the result measures using repeated measure analysis with interaction issue. Multiple linear regressions were used to assess prediction of days to full oral feeding and age at discharge. We included in the model universal variables every bit well every bit variables that were institute to exist significantly different betwixt the two groups. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically pregnant.

Sample size calculation was based on the main effect measurement of the days needed to achieve full oral feeding. We calculated that a sample size of 30 infants was needed in each grouping in club to achieve a ability of ninety% and a level of significance of 5% (two-sided) for detecting a mean divergence of −5.0 ± 1, day which was the matrix found by a previous study that assessed the same outcome (18, 29). A number of 40 infants in each grouping was planned in order to compensate for possible dropout during the written report.

Results

Of the 286 preterm infants born during the written report period, 15 died prior to discharge and 80 met the exclusion criteria (Figure 1). The parents of 113 infants were approached; of these, 75 consented to participate. Eight infants were excluded after initial inclusion. Among the excluded PGRF: ane required abdominal surgery, 1 pair of twins was diagnosed with spherocytosis requiring repeated blood transfusions, one was excluded due to maternal illness preventing the mother'due south presence during transitioning to oral feeding, and 1 withdrew to return to TF. Amidst the excluded TF: the parents of a pair of twins withdrew their participation for an unknown reason, and one baby died due to fulminant sepsis. Sixty-seven infants (TF 35, PGRF 32) completed the study and entered the final statistical analysis.

Flowchart of the study participants.

Every bit the report progressed, the investigators noticed that contagion of the study occurred, so that technical strategies used on the PGRF group, such as flexible feeding intervals and the absence of requiring completion of a predetermined volume, were noticed among the TF group. These changes occurred secondary to specific parental or nursing requests. Finally, in November 2016, the nursing teams expressed their frustration at having to feed infants traditionally and requested to alter the unit's protocol to PGRF for all. This led to the report being stopped prematurely. Protocol departure, using PGRF strategies, occurred in 29 (83%) of the controls at a median age of 35.16 weeks (34.28–36.28). Protocol deviation was divers as (i) interval between feedings of less or more than than 3 h, or (2) non completing a predetermined volume of feeding, or (iii) a written medical order that allowed flexibility in timing of feeding or feeding volume.

Table 1 presents the maternal demographics and pregnancy characteristics of the study groups. The groups were comparable in terms of maternal age, marital condition, maternal education, rates of in-vitro fertilization, surgical delivery, and GA at nascence. The following characteristics differed between the groups: (i) existence born as role of twins; and (ii) being a first child. The infants' baseline and clinical characteristics were similar amid the groups (Table 2).

Table 1

Maternal pregnancy and infant demographics and characteristics.

	PGRF northward = 32	TF n = 35	Statistic value	p-value
MATERNAL CHARACTERISTICS
Maternal age (y)	32.03 ± 5.74	33.46 ± four.89	i.10a	0.276
In-vitro fertilization	12 (37.five%)	12 (34.three%)	0.75b	0.784
Kickoff child	24 (75.0%)	17 (48.6%)	4.92b	0.027
Prenatal steroids	30 (93.eight%)	34 (97.1%)	0.45b	0.502
Surgical delivery	21 (65.six%)	27 (77.ane%)	1.09b	0.296
Gestational age (wks)	29.19 ± 2.27	29.22 ± ii.25	0.04a	0.967
Twin	xiii (40.half-dozen%)	24 (68.6%)	v.28b	0.022
Spouse	30 (93.8%)	32 (91.iv%)	0.thirteenb	0.718
Maternal education (y)	xv.63 ± 1.68	xv.lxxx ± 3.09	0.29a	0.772
Income
Loftier	15 (48.4%)	eighteen (51.4%)
Middle	13 (41.9%)	eleven (31.four%)	1.20b	0.548
Depression	three (9.seven%)	6 (17.1%)
INFANT CHARACTERISTICS
Male	16 (50.0%)	19 (54.3%)	0.12b	0.726
Apgar 5 minutes	10 (nine–10)	10 (9–ten)	−0.xiiic	0.897
CRIB II	six (3–9.75)	6 (5–ten)	−one.01c	0.313
Birth weight (one thousand)	1279 ± 336	1218 ± 311	−0.77a	0.442
Duration of i.v fluids (d)	8 (six–12)	eight (6–14)	−0.07c	0.945
Proven sepsis	5 (fifteen.half-dozen%)	7 (20.0%)	0.22b	0.641
Duration of O2 support (d)	vii (i–23.25)	half dozen (1–26)	−0.47c	0.636
Utilise of IMV	18 (56.3%)	18 (51.4%)	0.16b	0.693
Duration of IMV (d)	1 (0–3)	one (0–2)	−6.30c	0.529

Table 2

Infant outcomes.

	PGRF n = 32	TF n = 35	Statistic valuea	p-value
Weight at 36 weeks (g)	2211 (1982–2393)	2166 (1966–2139)	−0.91	0.363
Chest milk at 34 wks (%)	91.3 (36.05–100)	100 (76–100)	−i.51	0.131
Chest milk at 35 wks (%)	86 (thirteen–100)	100 (43.75–100)	−1.56	0.119
Direct breastfeeding at 34 wks (%)	0 (0–5.32)	5.35 (ane–ten)	−ii.81	0.005
Direct breastfeeding at 35 wks (%)	0 (0–x.80)	6.25 (ane.80–sixteen.30)	−2.24	0.025
Apnea/bradycardia at 34 wks	three.5 (one.0–13.50)	ix.00 (2.00–18.00)	−1.98	0.047
Apnea/bradycardia 35 wks	1.00 (0–five.75)	3.00 (0–viii.00)	−1.44	0.156

Prophylactic

No episodes of hypoglycemia or weight loss that required deviation from the protocol were documented during the written report menstruation (34-36 weeks).

Intervention Effects

Infants randomized to the PGRF group reached full oral feeding significantly earlier (median of 2 vs. viii days, p < 0.001) (run across Figure two) and at a significantly earlier GA (median of 34.28 vs. 35.14 weeks, p < 0.001) (see Effigy three). The PRGF group was discharged significantly earlier (mean 36.34 ± 0.66 vs. 36.86 ± 1.00 weeks, p = 0.014) (Figure 4). Figure 5 presents the results of the repeated measure assay of the average weight proceeds during 33 to 35 completed weeks with the interaction of type of feeding grouping. Nosotros found a significant effect for time [F _{(2, 130)} = 7.65 p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.105) suggesting that during the assessed period, the boilerplate weight (yard/Kg/twenty-four hours) changed significantly. The significant alter occurred but between week 33 to calendar week 34 (p = 0.002), and between week 33 to week 35 (p = 0.009). An interaction effect was observed between time and feeding group [F _{(2, 130)} = nine.87 p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.132), meaning that the change in the mean weight proceeds (g/Kg/24-hour interval) during weeks 33–36 differed betwixt the groups: while in the TF grouping, there was a consistent reduction in weight gain between weeks 33–36, in the PGRF group, at that place was a reduction in the mean weight gain during the first calendar week of the intervention (week 34), which changed into an increase during the second week of the intervention (week 35). This increased rate of weight proceeds that occurred during week 35 was at a charge per unit similar to the charge per unit of weight gain before the intervention. No meaning upshot for group was found [F_{(ane, 63)} = 0 p = 0.993]. Infants who underwent the intervention were significantly more than probable to exist actively fed past their parents during the intervention weeks compared to the TF group (at 34 weeks GA: xxx.19 ± 13.24 vs. 15.75 ± xi.87 percentage of feedings, p < 0.001; at 35 weeks GA: 33.38 ± 17.01 vs. xx.9 ± xiv.seventy percent of feedings, p < 0.001) (Effigy 6).

Time to full oral feeding among the study groups. Data are presented every bit median (P25-P75). Statistical analysis was based on Isle of man-Whitney-test. PGRF, parental guided responsive feeding; TF, traditional feeding.

Historic period at full oral feeding among the study groups. Data are presented equally median (P25-P75). Statistical analysis was based on Isle of man-Whitney test. PGRF, parental guided responsive feeding; TF, traditional feeding.

Age at belch amidst the study groups. Data are presented as hateful ± standard departure. Statistical analysis was based on independent sample t-test. PGRF, parental guided responsive feeding; TF, traditional feeding.

Boilerplate weight gain (g/kg/day) amongst the study groups. PGRF, parental guided responsive feeding; TF, traditional feeding. Analysis was based on repeated measure assay with Bonferroni correction for time outcome. Three chief effects were tested:

1. Outcome for Time F _{(ii, 126)} = vii.202 p = 0.001, partial eta-squared (ηp2) = 0.103 (10.three%). Afterwards Bonferroni correction the significant differences were establish betwixt week 33 to calendar week 34 (p = 0.002) and week 35 (p = 0.023), but not between week 34 to calendar week 35 (p = 0.875).

2. Outcome for grouping F _{(1, 63)} = 0 p = 0.993, partial eta-squared (ηp2) = 0.000 (0%)

3. Interaction effect (Time^*Group) F _{(2, 126)} = 10.921 p < 0.001, partial eta-squared (ηp2) = 0.148 (xiv.8%).

[The upshot sizes limited the amount of variance accounted for by one or more independent variables].

Parental active feeding (percentage) during the intervention amongst the study groups. PGRF, parental guided responsive feeding; TF, traditional feeding. Analysis was based on repeated measure analysis.

Three principal effects were tested:

1. Effect for Fourth dimension F _{(1, 64)} = 5.082 p = 0.028, partial eta-squared (ηp2) = 0.074 (vii.four%).

two. Outcome for group F _{(ane, 64)} = twenty.01 p < 0.001, partial eta-squared (ηp2) = 0.238 (23.8%).

three. Interaction outcome (Time^*Group) F _{(ane, 64)} = 0.283 p = 0.597, partial eta-squared (ηp2) = 0.004 (0.iv%).

[The effect sizes express the amount of variance accounted for by one or more than contained variables].

There was no difference in the percent of chest milk given during the intervention between the groups, although straight breastfeeding was less probable to occur among the PGRF compared to the TF grouping. Fewer apnea/bradycardia episodes occurred at 34 weeks in the PGRF group compared to the TF group (median 3.five vs. 9 p = 0.047).

In order to predict the time to total oral feeding, a linear regression was conducted. The post-obit independent variables were included in the model: sociodemographic (maternal age and education, spouse, income, beingness kickoff child, part of twins), infants' characteristics (GA, duration of oxygen handling) and feeding group. Contained variables predicted 43.seven% of the variance of time to full oral feeding [F _{(9, 65)} = 4.84 p < 0.001]. The only pregnant variable was feeding group (B = -6.43 p < 0.001); The PGRF infants were more likely to reach total oral feeding earlier.

In order to predict historic period at discharge, a linear regression was conducted. The same independent variables were entered to the model. The result shows that the independent variables predict 22.ix% of the variance of age at belch [F _{(9, 65)} = i.84 p = 0.08]. The only significant variable was feeding grouping (B = -0.495 p = 0.036); infant feeding in PGRF compare to TF were more likely to be discharged earlier.

Discussion

The present study sought to investigate the short-term effects of a unique feeding intervention for transitioning preterm infants to oral feeding. This intervention, which was parent-guided and required responsive interaction between the parents and their infants, was proven to be safe. Moreover, infants who underwent the intervention reached total oral feeding within a shorter period of fourth dimension and at a significantly earlier GA, demonstrated an earlier return to their baseline rate of weight gain prior to the transition from tube to oral feeding, experienced less apnea/bradycardia events during the kickoff intervention week and were discharged dwelling significantly before. Increasing demands by parents and the nursing teams to utilize the intervention strategies in all infants resulted in premature termination of the study. This led to generalizing the intervention for all hospitalized infants, suggesting the powerful effect of this feeding strategy on parental (and nursing) perception of infant wellbeing.

In this study, which to the best of our knowledge is the first to target parents as the primary providers of the responsive feeding intervention, we found that the intervention grouping parents were significantly more than probable to nourish feedings and feed their infants by themselves. Parents were not directly encouraged to attend feedings; however, the importance of consistency in the care of an infant by its principal caregiver was discussed during the workshop. This finding may suggest higher parental competence and comfort in their infants' intendance, too as better engagement. Interventions supporting parents in their skills to observe and interpret their infants' behavior have been associated with improved cognition later in the infants' life (30, 31). A recent longitudinal study that followed preterm infants into adulthood, demonstrated, that good early on parent infant relationship defined as frequency of visits, pleasure in the care of their infant and more confidence in their caring practices, predicted an ~5-point increase in developed IQ (32). Such interventions, i.due east., that support parental appointment and competence may restore and normalize the parent–infant human relationship, promote sensitive and consistent parent-babe interaction and strengthen innate resilience in both parent and kid (33). Our results should be interpreted with caution, as we did non straight measure parental satisfaction, nor did we directly measure levels of stress, competence, or the power to responsively feed. The positive upshot could be only hypothesized by the need to end the study prematurely and expand this intervention to all NICU infants as requested past parents and nurses. Recently, Thoyre et al. studied a novel strategy to co-regulate feeding by mothers (28). The authors stated that major obstacles in delivering the intervention were "inconsistency in the care and divergent ideas," which were perceived past parents as critical for the success of the intervention. Our experience over the 3 years of this report strongly supports the above finding. Given the many complexities and factors involved in feeding a preterm babe, this process tin exist fabricated even more than difficult when providers are not in agreement regarding the all-time methods and approaches for doing and then (34). The electric current results indicate that the key to success involves collaborating with parents, maintaining transparency, and establishing consistency.

Being free of nasogastric tubes is a critical milestone in many NICUs for belch dwelling house. Non only does tube removal provide the baby with more than comfort and eliminate the brunt and stress associated with its recurrent placement, it too allows more than freedom for the parents while caring for their hospitalized kid. In the present study, preterm infants allocated to the PGRF group reached full oral feeding at a significantly earlier GA and within a significantly shorter catamenia of time. Only two studies to date, both by McCain et al. reported the age of full oral feeding among preterm infants exposed to responsive feeding intervention. Both of these studies differ from the present 1 in their inclusion criteria and responsive feeding strategies (17, eighteen). In the start study by McCain et al. the time indicate for initiating the intervention was 32–34 weeks GA, every bit compared to 34 weeks GA in the current written report. In addition, if a minimum was not achieved, a total amount was supplemented via nasogastric tube, as compared to the intermediate volume that was used in the current study (eighteen). The second study of McCain included extremely premature infants (mean GA 25 weeks) diagnosed with bronchopulmonary dysplasia, different the current report in which all infants were free of oxygen back up at 33 weeks GA. Furthermore, the intervention was started at a later GA (hateful GA 35-36 weeks) (18). In spite of these differences, in all 3 studies (McCain's studies and the present study), the intervention shortened the time needed to attain full oral feeding, with a mean of 5 ± 4.two days and 5.9 ± four.6 days in McCain's studies and iii.06 ± 3.09 days in ours. We speculate that decreasing the fourth dimension to attain full oral feeding in the present study can be attributed to the uniqueness of the intervention i.e., allowing infants to develop hunger satiety cycles using a low minimal volume, fugitive maximal book supplementation if the minimum was not accomplished and allowing up to 4 h between feedings. Of note, the result of the intervention was preserved when taking into account socioeconomic measures (having a sibling, maternal education, and parental income), indicating that the intervention may exist effective in a wide array of populations.

Early postnatal growth has been shown to correlate with long-term outcomes of preterm infants (35). Theoretically, allowing preterm infants to dictate the timing and duration of enteral feeding allows longer rest periods betwixt some feeds and promotes infant-adamant sleep and wake patterns, thus reducing unnecessary energy expenditure and increasing growth rates (36). In the nowadays study, infants allocated to the PGRF intervention continued to gain weight throughout the study. Although a reduction in hateful weight proceeds occurred during the first intervention week, it transitioned and returned to the baseline rate during the two week. This weight proceeds pattern was different than the TF group, whose weight gain connected to decline over the study menses. The results of a Cochrane meta-analysis propose that in four trials that included 305 participants slower charge per unit of weight gain was noticed among responsive fed infants (mean difference of −1.36 g/kg/day lower weight gain, 95% CI −2.44 to −0.29 g/kg/day; I ² = five%) (8, 16–18, 23). In three of these trials the outcomes were assessed for 10–14 days (8, 18, 23), when ready to exist discharge home, while in one report for 1 calendar week merely (17). In the nowadays study, we assessed the change in wait (thou/kg/solar day) starting prior to the intervention and continued for 2 weeks. The PGRF group had a significantly slower in weight gain during the beginning calendar week of intervention however by the 2 week, the rate of weight gain returned to baseline while the TF infants a continues subtract was noted. We speculate that premature removal of the nasogastric tube (upon initiation of the intervention), as occurred in 2 studies (8, 37), premature cess of weight outcomes (upon arrival at full oral feeding) (37), and not using an intermediate volume strategy when the minimum book was not orally reached, may contribute to this departure in results. The nowadays study results are in agreement with the conclusions of Puckett et al. which illustrated the occurrence of a transition time: "two to 3 days on boilerplate are needed to show consistent weight gain" (eight). Nosotros recommend that caregivers and parents exist informed well-nigh a transition period in in which weight proceeds initially slows down, but subsequently returns to a steady rate, similar to the charge per unit of weight gain prior to the feeding transition from tube to oral. We also point to the importance of using intermediate book supplementation and removal of the nasogastric tube upon infant readiness, rather than according to a pre-planned schedule.

Our model demonstrates only the type of intervention is associated with the duration needed to achieve total oral feeding and with age at discharge home. Delay in acquiring feeding skills is the most frequent cause of prolonged hospitalization in the NICU (38, 39). Discharge criteria also include weight (>1900 grand), reaching 36 weeks GA, and beingness complimentary of apnea and bradycardia spells. We speculated that PGRF will consequence in a significant decrease in apnea and bradycardia frequency. During the showtime intervention week, apnea/ bradycardia events occurred significantly less than in the PGRF group. Although the frequency of these events continued to decrease during the second intervention week, the rate of apnea/bradycardia events did non reach significance in the 2nd week. This may be explained by physiologic maturity which occurs with increased GA, and which would affect both groups. Even so, the effect of some of the TF infants being fed using PGRF strategies, which was documented among the TF group at 35 weeks GA, cannot be ruled out as the cause for the absenteeism of significance betwixt the groups during the second intervention week.

But a few randomized studies to appointment have evaluated the effect of responsive feeding on very preterm infants' outcomes (8, 17, 18, 23, 37, xl–42). Compared to the aforementioned previous studies, this study used a relatively larger number of participants and a unique methodology, as described above.

This study is not free of limitations, the major one being the inability to bullheaded for the intervention, mainly due to the different medical feeding orders in the infants' charts. We presume that this limitation is restricted, as the outcomes measured i.e., time to full oral feed, historic period at discharge, weight changes etc. were blinded to the medical teams caring for the infants who were making the clinical decisions or documenting in the medical charts. Also, data were retrieved by a different team, which included a non-medical group, thus limiting their influence on medical decisions. A 2d limitation was the increased use of "intervention strategies" amidst the controls, creating a contagion in the control grouping. This, however, occurred at a afterwards GA and involved mainly technical aspects of the intervention (assuasive longer time intervals between the feedings and not having to terminate the canteen). In spite of the above, the beneficial result of the intervention could still be demonstrated compared to the TF group, in terms of before age at full oral feeding, parents of weight changes over time, and higher parental omnipresence during feeds, thus supporting the importance of parental responsiveness and early on initiation (34 weeks). The third limitation is the recruitment of relatively healthy preterm infants. However, this created a more homogeneous group, and minimized potential confounding factors. Too, in one case proven condom in healthy preterm population, this intervention tin can be studied on loftier run a risk infants. In spite of these limitation, the significant differences in outcomes between the groups support the powerful consequence of this intervention. The quaternary limitation is associated with the differences in the demographic characteristics between the groups, such that those infants in the PGRF group were more likely to be first born and significantly less likely to be part of a twin pregnancy. These differences were deemed for in the regression model. Lastly, our cue-based intervention was express by our traditional protocols, which did non let initiation of oral feeding prior to 34 weeks or co-ordinate to babe readiness. Nosotros assume that initiation of oral feeding could have been started before for the more neurologically mature infants, possibly demonstrating a larger effect in terms of time to full oral feeding and belch domicile.

Decision

Our results accept some important clinical implications. In particular they emphasize that parental guided cue-based intendance is feasible and when used for transitioning preterm infants to oral feeding, this intervention significantly shortened the duration needed to accomplish oral feeding and discharge home, without compromising weight gain, as measured at 36 weeks GA. Parental presence increased in the PGRF grouping, which may suggest an increased level of parental competence and confidence. Long-term follow-upward assessing developmental outcomes, mother-child interaction, and feeding habits is currently underway.

Summary

This RCT represents a unique strategy of transitioning preterm infants from nasogastric feeding to oral feeding. This strategy has shown improved brusque-term outcomes.

What'southward Known on this Subject area

Few studies to engagement have evaluated the issue of responsive feeding interventions on preterm infants' outcomes. In these studies, the outcomes demonstrate that responsive feeding tin reduce transition time to oral feeding but can exist associated with slower rate of weight proceeds.

What this Study Adds

In this randomized controlled trial, preterm infants were transitioned to oral feeding using a parental guided responsive feeding strategy. Infants in the intervention group required less fourth dimension to transition to total oral feeding, gained more than weight, were discharged earlier, and were more likely to be fed past their parents.

Ethics Argument

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of Helsinki Guidlines, co-ordinate to the Sheba Medical Middle Ethics committee with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was canonical by the Sheba Medical Center committee.

Author Contributions

IM conceptualized and designed the study, coordinated and supervised data collection, analyzed the information and drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. YH coordinated and supervised information drove, co-analyzed the data and revised the manuscript. DK helped in reviewing the literature, drafted and reviewed the manuscript. RG conceptualized and designed the study, conducted all data analyses, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. ST co-analyzed the data, reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Disharmonize of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absenteeism of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential disharmonize of involvement.

Acknowledgments

We thank the families who took part in this study. We thank Dr. Nikk Conneman, our NIDCAP trainer, equally well as Dr. Miri Keren and Dr. Neta Avner from the Unit of measurement of Early Childhood Psychiatry at Tel Aviv University, for sensitizing united states to the importance of early infants' experiences, the importance of nurturing interactions, and the demand to forestall intrusiveness from an early age, in order to accomplish a better future outcome. We thank the Sheba NICU nursing team for helping in this study'south execution.

Glossary

Abbreviations

NGT	nasogastric tube
NICU	Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of measurement
GA	gestational historic period
PGRF	parental guided responsive feeding
TF	traditionally fed
hTF	historical grouping
GA	gestational age
BW	nascence weight
NICU	neonatal intensive care unit
NIDCAP	Neonatal Individual Developmental Care and Assessment Program
CRIB II	Clinical Adventure Index for Babies.

Footnotes

Funding. The project was funded by Materna Infant Nutrition Research Institute.

References

1. Shaker CS. Infant-guided, co-regulated feeding in the neonatal intensive care unit. part I: theoretical underpinnings for neuroprotection and safety. Semin Speech Lang. (2017) 38:96–105. 10.1055/south-0037-1599107 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

2. Thoyre South, Shaker C, Pridham K. The early on feeding skills assessment for preterm infants. Neonatal Netw. (2011) 24:7–16. ten.1891/0730-0832.24.iii.7 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

iii. Lubbe Westward. Clinicians guide for cue-based transition to oral feeding in preterm infants: an like shooting fish in a barrel-to-use clinical guide. J Eval Clin Pract. (2018) 24:80–88. 10.1111/jep.12721 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

iv. Hawdon JM, Beauregard N, Slattery J, Kennedy G. Identification of neonates at risk of developing feeding problems in infancy. Dev Med Child Neurol. (2007) 42:235–ix. 10.1017/S0012162200000402 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

5. Ludwig SM. Oral feeding and the late preterm infant. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev. (2007) 1:72–five. 10.1053/j.nainr.2007.05.005 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. Mathew OP. Breathing patterns of preterm infants during bottle feeding: role of milk menses. J Pediatr. (1991) 119:960–5. 10.1016/S0022-3476(05)83056-two [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Kirk AT, Alder SC, King JD. Cue-based oral feeding clinical pathway results in before attainment of full oral feeding in premature infants. J Perinatol. (2007) 27:572–8. 10.1038/sj.jp.7211791 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

viii. Puckett B, Grover VK, Holt T, Sankaran K. Cue-based feeding for preterm infants: a prospective trial. Am J Perinatol. (2008) ten:623–8. 10.1055/south-0028-1090583 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

ix. Ross ES, Browne JV. Developmental progression of feeding skills: an arroyo to supporting feeding in preterm infants. Semin Neonatol. (2002) 7(6):469–75. 10.1053/siny.2002.0152 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Shaker CS. Cue-based co-regulated feeding in the neonatal intensive intendance unit of measurement: supporting parents in learning to feed their preterm babe. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev. (2013) 13:51–5. 10.1053/j.nainr.2012.12.009 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

11. Forcada-Guex Chiliad, Pierre-Humbert B, Borghini A, Moessinger A, Muller-Cypher C. Early dyadic patterns of mother-infant interactions and outcomes of prematurity at eighteen months. Pediatrics. (2006) 118:e107–fourteen. 10.1542/peds.2005-1145 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Thoyre SM. Feeding outcomes of extremely premature infants after neonatal care. J Obstet, Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. (2007) 36:366–75. 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2007.00158.10 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

13. Rommel N, De Meyer A-M, Feenstra L, Veereman-Wauters G. The complication of feeding problems in 700 infants and young children presenting to a tertiary care institution. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. (2003) 37:75–84. 10.1097/00005176-200307000-00014 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Samara M, Johnson South, Lamberts K, Marlow N, Wolke D. Eating problems at age 6 years in a whole population sample of extremely preterm children. Dev Med Child Neurol. (2010) 52:16–22. 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2009.03512.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Reyna BA, Pickler RH, Thompson A. A descriptive written report of mothers' experiences feeding their preterm infants later discharge. Adv Neonatal Care. (2006) 6:333–40. 10.1016/j.adnc.2006.08.007 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

xvi. Watson J, McGuire Westward. Responsive versus scheduled feeding for preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2016) eight:CD005255 10.1002/14651858.CD005255.pub5 [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

17. McCain GC, Gartside PS, Greenberg JM, Lott JW. A feeding protocol for salubrious preterm infants that shortens time to oral feeding. J Pediatr. (2001) 139:374–9. x.1067/mpd.2001.117077 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

18. McCain GC, Del Moral T, Duncan RC, Fontaine JL, Pino LD. Transition from gavage to nipple feeding for preterm infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Nurs Res. (2012) 61:380–seven. ten.1097/NNR.0b013e318268cefb [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Fenton TR, Kim JH. A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants. BMC Pediatr. (2013) twenty:13–59. x.1186/1471-2431-thirteen-59 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

xx. Kliegman RM, Walsh MC. Neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis: pathogenesis, classification, and spectrum of disease. Curr Probl Pediatr. (1987) 17:213–88. 10.1016/0045-9380(87)90031-4 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

21. Als H, Gilkerson Fifty. The function of relationship-based developmentally supportive newborn intensive care in strengthening upshot of preterm infants. Semin Perinatol. (1997) 21:178–89. 10.1016/S0146-0005(97)80062-half-dozen [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Als H. Toward a synactive theory of development: Promise for the assessment and support of babe individuality. Babe Ment Wellness J. (1982) three:229–43. x.1002/10970355(198224)3:4<229::AIDIMHJ2280030405>3.0.CO;2-H [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

23. Kansas KL, Mackley AB, Desai S, Leef KH, Paul DA, Stefano JL. Self-regulation of feeding in the premature infant; a randomised trial of ad lib vs. scheduled feedings. Pediatr Res. (2004) 55:2493. [Google Scholar]

24. Als H, Duffy FH, McAnulty GB, Rivkin MJ, Vajapeyam S, Mulkern RV, et al. . Early on experience alters brain role and structure. Pediatrics. (2004) 113:846–57. x.1542/peds.113.4.846 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Ross ES, Philbin MK. SOFFI: An evidence-based method for quality canteen-feedings of preterm, ill, and fragile infants. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. (2011) 25:349–59. 10.1097/JPN.0b013e318234ac7a [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. Thoyre SM, Brownish RL. Factors contributing to preterm infant engagement during bottle-feeding. Nurs Res. (2004) 53:304–thirteen. 10.1097/00006199-200409000-00005 [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

27. Pickler RH. A model of feeding readiness for preterm infants. Neonatal Intensive Care. (2004) 17:31–vi. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Thoyre SM, Shaker C, Pridham 1000. Manual for assistants of the early feeding skills cess (EFS). (2009). [Google Scholar]

29. McCormick FM, Tosh Thou, McGuire W. Advertizing libitum or need/semi-demand feeding versus scheduled interval feeding for preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2010) 2:CD005255 10.1002/14651858.CD005255.pub3 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Achenbach TM, Howell CT, Aoki MF, Rauh VA. Nine-year outcome of the vermont intervention plan for low birth weight infants. Pediatrics. (1993) 91:45–4. 10.1109/ICDE.2005.226 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Nordhov SM, Ronning JA, Ulvund SE, Dahl LB, Kaaresen PI. Early on intervention improves behavioral outcomes for preterm infants: randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. (2012) 129:e9–e16. 10.1542/peds.2011-0248 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

32. Breeman LD, Jaekel J, Baumann N, Bartmann P, Wolke D. Neonatal predictors of cognitive ability in adults born very preterm: a prospective cohort report. Dev Med Child Neurol. (2017) 23:477–83. 10.1111/dmcn.13380 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

33. Flacking R, Lehtonen L, Thomson G, Axelin A, Ahlqvist Southward, Moran VH, et al. . Closeness and separation in neonatal intensive care. Acta Paediatr. (2012) 101:1032–7. x.1111/j.1651-2227.2012.02787.10 [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

34. Thoyre SM, Hubbard C, Park J, Pridham K, McKechnie A. Implementing co-regulated feeding with mothers of preterm infants. MCN. Am J Matern Child Nurs. (2016) 41:204–11. 10.1097/NMC.0000000000000245 [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

35. Ong KK, Kennedy K, Castañeda-Gutiérrez E, Forsyth South, Godfrey KM, Koletzko B, et al. . Postnatal growth in preterm infants and later health outcomes: a systematic review. Acta Paediatr. (2015) 104:974–86. 10.1111/apa.13128 [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

36. McCain G. An prove-based guideline for introducing oral Feeding to good for you preterm infants. Neonatal Netw. (2003) 22:45–50. 10.1891/0730-0832.22.5.45 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Collinge JM, Bradley G, Perks C, Rezny A, Topping P. Demand vs. scheduled feedings for premature infants. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. (1982) 11:362–vii. 10.1111/j.1552-6909.1982.tb01036.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Bakewell-Sachs South, Medoff-Cooper B, Escobar GJ, Silber JH, Lorch SA. Infant functional status: the timing of physiologic maturation of premature infants. Pediatrics. (2009) 123:e878–86. x.1542/peds.2008-2568 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

39. Jadcherla SR, Wang G, Vijayapal AS, Leuthner SR. Impact of prematurity and co-morbidities on feeding milestones in neonates: a retrospective study. J Perinatol. (2010) xxx:201–eight. 10.1038/jp.2009.149 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

xl. Saunders RB, Friedman CB, Stramoski PR. Feeding preterm infants schedule or demand? J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. (1991) 20:212–eighteen. 10.1111/j.1552-6909.1991.tb02533.10 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

41. Waber BW, Hubler EG, Padden ML. A comparison of outcomes in need versus schedule formula-fed premature infants. Nutr Clin Pract. (1998) thirteen:132–five. 10.1002/j.1941-2452.1998.tb03061.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

42. Pridham K, Kosorok MR, Greer F, Carey P, Kayata S, Sondel South. The effects of prescribed versus ad libitum feedings and formula caloric density of premature infant dietary intake and weight proceeds. Nurs Res. (1999) 48:86–93. 10.1097/00006199-199903000-00007 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

canoseemusting.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6521795/