Author(s)

M. van der Star, B. Semmekrot, E. Spanjaards, A. Schaafsma

Department of Pediatrics, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
FrieslandCampina, Innovation Infant & Toddler Nutrition, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.

Background: Whether premature infants should be fed by bolus or continuous gavage feeding, is still a matter of debate. A recent Cochrane analysis revealed no difference. Study design and methods: We carried out a randomized controlled trial in premature infants on continuous versus bolus nasogastric tube feeding, to search for differences with respect to number of incidents, growth, and time to reach full oral feeding. In total, 110 premature neonates (gestational age 27 - 34 weeks) were randomly assigned to receive either continuous or bolus nasogastric tube feeding. Basic characteristics were comparable in both groups. Results: No significant difference in weight gain could be detected between the two groups, mean weight gain amounting 151.6 (108.9 - 194.3) and 152.4 (102.2 - 202.6) grams per week in the continuous and bolus group, respectively. No significant differences were found between both groups in the time needed to achieve full oral feeding (8 oral feedings per day), full oral feeding being achieved at day 31 (range 19 - 43) and day 29 (range 18 - 40) of life in the continuous and bolus group, respectively. We also found no significant differences in the number of "incident-days" (three or more incidents a day): 3.5 (0 - 9) versus 2.7 (0 - 6.5) days in the continuous and bolus group, respectively. Conclusion: No significant differences were found in weight gain, time to achieve full oral feeding and number of incident-days between preterm infants enterally fed by nasogastric tube, according to either the bolus or continuous method.

Premature; Infant; Tube Feeding; Bolus Feeding; Continuous Feeding

van der Star, M. , Semmekrot, B. , Spanjaards, E. and Schaafsma, A. (2012) Continuous versus bolus nasogastric tube feeding in premature neonates: Randomized controlled trial. Open Journal of Pediatrics, 2, 214-218. doi: 10.4236/ojped.2012.23034.