Effectiveness of nasogastric versus orogastric tube feeding in preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Shruthi Kumar Bharadwaj, Risha Devi, Sanjana Hansoge Somanath, Abdul Kareem Pullattayil, Vijay Shree Dhyani
{"title":"Effectiveness of nasogastric versus orogastric tube feeding in preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Shruthi Kumar Bharadwaj, Risha Devi, Sanjana Hansoge Somanath, Abdul Kareem Pullattayil, Vijay Shree Dhyani","doi":"10.1002/jpn3.12476","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of nasogastric versus orogastric tube feeding on feeding performance in preterm neonates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Randomized, quasi-randomized, and cross-over trials published in peer-reviewed journals with no language or country restrictions were included. Preterm neonates (<37 weeks) receiving nasogastric or orogastric enteral feeding until full oral feeds were established formed the exposure and comparison groups.</p><p><strong>Primary outcome: </strong>time to achieve full enteral feeding; secondary outcomes: feeding performance, growth, and adverse events. A comprehensive literature search across multiple databases was conducted up to January 2024. Two authors independently screened studies, assessed the risk of bias, and performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Evidence levels were determined following Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six studies, including 273 preterm neonates, were included. Nasogastric feeding reduced the time to achieve full enteral feeds compared to orogastric feeding (mean difference [MD], -1.62 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.25 to -0.99 days) with very low certainty of evidence. Combined episodes of bradycardia and desaturation per hour were higher in nasogastric feeding than orogastric feeding (MD, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.14-0.34), as were episodes of bradycardia (MD, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.04-0.13) and desaturation (MD, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.10-0.22). No significant differences were found in time to regain birth weight, apnea, necrotizing enterocolitis, or sepsis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Nasogastric tube feeding reduces the time to achieve full enteral feeds but increases episodes of bradycardia and desaturation compared to orogastric feeding in preterm neonates. Cautious interpretation is required as the low to very low certainty evidence highlights the need for larger, well-designed trials for evidence-based recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":16694,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jpn3.12476","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of nasogastric versus orogastric tube feeding on feeding performance in preterm neonates.

Methods: Randomized, quasi-randomized, and cross-over trials published in peer-reviewed journals with no language or country restrictions were included. Preterm neonates (<37 weeks) receiving nasogastric or orogastric enteral feeding until full oral feeds were established formed the exposure and comparison groups.

Primary outcome: time to achieve full enteral feeding; secondary outcomes: feeding performance, growth, and adverse events. A comprehensive literature search across multiple databases was conducted up to January 2024. Two authors independently screened studies, assessed the risk of bias, and performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Evidence levels were determined following Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines.

Results: Six studies, including 273 preterm neonates, were included. Nasogastric feeding reduced the time to achieve full enteral feeds compared to orogastric feeding (mean difference [MD], -1.62 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.25 to -0.99 days) with very low certainty of evidence. Combined episodes of bradycardia and desaturation per hour were higher in nasogastric feeding than orogastric feeding (MD, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.14-0.34), as were episodes of bradycardia (MD, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.04-0.13) and desaturation (MD, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.10-0.22). No significant differences were found in time to regain birth weight, apnea, necrotizing enterocolitis, or sepsis.

Conclusions: Nasogastric tube feeding reduces the time to achieve full enteral feeds but increases episodes of bradycardia and desaturation compared to orogastric feeding in preterm neonates. Cautious interpretation is required as the low to very low certainty evidence highlights the need for larger, well-designed trials for evidence-based recommendations.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
13.80%
发文量
467
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: ​The Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition (JPGN) provides a forum for original papers and reviews dealing with pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition, including normal and abnormal functions of the alimentary tract and its associated organs, including the salivary glands, pancreas, gallbladder, and liver. Particular emphasis is on development and its relation to infant and childhood nutrition.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信