Cargando…

Role of feeding strategy bundle with acid-suppressive therapy in infants with esophageal acid reflux exposure: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that a feeding bundle concurrent with acid suppression is superior to acid suppression alone in improving gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) attributed-symptom scores and feeding outcomes in neonatal ICU infants. METHODS: Infants (N = 76) between 34 and 60 weeks...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jadcherla, Sudarshan R., Hasenstab, Kathryn A., Wei, Lai, Osborn, Erika K., Viswanathan, Sreekanth, Gulati, Ish K., Slaughter, Jonathan L., Di Lorenzo, Carlo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group US 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7647955/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32380509
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41390-020-0932-4
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that a feeding bundle concurrent with acid suppression is superior to acid suppression alone in improving gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) attributed-symptom scores and feeding outcomes in neonatal ICU infants. METHODS: Infants (N = 76) between 34 and 60 weeks’ postmenstrual age with acid reflux index > 3% were randomly allocated to study (acid-suppressive therapy + feeding bundle) or conventional (acid-suppressive therapy only) arms for 4 weeks. Feeding bundle included: total fluid volume < 140 mL/kg/day, fed over 30 min in right lateral position, and supine postprandial position. Primary outcome was independent oral feeding and/or ≥6-point decrease in symptom score (I-GERQ-R). Secondary outcomes included growth (weight, length, head circumference), length of hospital stay (LOHS, days), airway (oxygen at discharge), and developmental (Bayley scores) milestones. RESULTS: Of 688 screened: 76 infants were randomized and used for the primary outcome as intent-to-treat, and secondary outcomes analyzed for 72 infants (N = 35 conventional, N = 37 study). For study vs. conventional groups, respectively: (a) 33% (95% CI, 19−49%) vs. 44% (95% CI, 28−62%), P = 0.28 achieved primary outcome success, and (b) secondary outcomes did not significantly differ (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Feeding strategy modifications concurrent with acid suppression are not superior to PPI alone in improving GERD symptoms or discharge feeding, short-term and long-term outcomes. IMPACT: Conservative feeding therapies are thought to modify GERD symptoms and its consequences. However, in this randomized controlled trial in convalescing neonatal ICU infants with GERD symptoms, when controlling for preterm or full-term birth and severity of esophageal acid reflux index, the effectiveness of acid suppression plus a feeding modification bundle (volume restriction, intra- and postprandial body positions, and prolonged feeding periods) vs. acid suppression alone, administered over a 4-week period was not superior in improving symptom scores or feeding outcomes. Restrictive feeding strategies are of no impact in modifying GERD symptoms or clinically meaningful outcomes. Further studies are needed to define true GERD and to identify effective therapies in modifying pathophysiology and outcomes. The improvement in symptoms and feeding outcomes over time irrespective of feeding modifications may suggest a maturational effect. This study justifies the use of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial among NICU infants with objectively defined GERD.