Effects of intermittent nasogastric feeding with nonnutritive sucking on nutrient and gastrointestinal tract transit time in premature infants.
- Author:
Xiao-hong YUE
1
;
Cui-xia ZHAO
;
Hui LU
;
Xin-dong XUE
Author Information
- Publication Type:Clinical Trial
- MeSH: Enteral Nutrition; Female; Gastrointestinal Motility; physiology; Gastrointestinal Tract; physiology; Humans; Infant Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Infant, Low Birth Weight; growth & development; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; growth & development; Infant, Very Low Birth Weight; growth & development; Male; Sucking Behavior
- From: Chinese Journal of Pediatrics 2003;41(2):91-94
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVETo evaluate the effects of nonnutritive sucking (NNS) on the nutrient intake, physical growth, feeding-related complications and whole gastrointestinal transit time (WGTT) in premature infants.
METHODSThirty eight healthy appropriate for gestational age premature infants (birth weights ranged from 1 050 g to 1 790 g) accepting intermittent nasogastric feeding (INGF) were randomized into NNS group and N-NNS group according to INGF with and without NNS and fed with the same milk formula. The following data were collected and recorded, the physical growth parameters (e.g, body weight, length and head circumference) and the birth-weight regaining time, the fluid intake (including both intravenous and oral), caloric intake, time of reaching 418.4 kJ/(kg.d) by enteral feeding, time of putting nasogastric tube, stool frequency and characters, and relevant complications. WGTT were monitored.
RESULTSThe birth-weight regaining time in NNS group was significantly shorter than that in N-NNS group [(8.8 +/- 3.7) d vs (11.1 +/- 3.0) d, P < 0.05]. Within two weeks after feeding, there was no significant difference in the increase of body weight, length and head circumference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The time of reaching 418.4 kJ/(kg.d) by enteral feeding in NNS group was significantly shorter than that in N-NNS group [(12.3 +/- 5.1) d vs (15.7 +/- 5.2) d, P < 0.05]; the times of putting nasogastric tube were respectively (13 +/- 10) d and (17 +/- 12) d, but the difference was not significant (P > 0.05). The morbidity of such complications as vomiting and abdominal distension was lower in NNS group than that in N-NNS group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). However, the morbidity of gastric residue in NNS was significantly lower than that in N-NNS (P < 0.05). WGTT of the second week in NNS group was significantly shorter than that in N-NNS [(33 +/- 13) h vs (45 +/- 20) h, P < 0.05]. Stool frequencies of the second week in NNS group were significantly more than those in N-NNS group [(2.26 +/- 0.17) times/d vs (1.79 +/- 0.58) times/d, P < 0.05]. However, there were no significantly differences in WGTT and stool frequencies of the first week between the two groups (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONNNS was recommended as a beneficial intervention for premature infants during intermittent nasogastric tube feeding.
