Neonatology · 2010
Oral versus nasal route for placing feeding tubes: no effect on hypoxemia and bradycardia in infants with apnea of prematurity.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bohnhorst Bettina, Cech Kathrin, Peter Corinna, Doerdelmann Michael
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Raised upper airway resistance may be involved in apnea of prematurity (AOP).
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of an oral versus a nasal gastric tube on episodes of hypoxemia and bradycardia in infants with AOP.
METHODS: In a randomized controlled cross-over trial, 32 infants (median gestational age 29 (range 24-31) weeks, postmenstrual age at study 32 (range 30-35) weeks) with the need for tube feeding and symptoms of AOP underwent a 24-hour recording of breathing movements, nasal airflow, heart rate, pulse oximeter saturation and pulse waveforms. A 5-Fr feeding tube was placed orally or nasally for 12 h each, the position selected first was randomly assigned. When the feeding tube was placed nasally, always the smaller nostril was selected. Each infant acted as his/her own control. Recordings were analyzed for the summed rate of bradycardia and desaturation (heart rate <2/3 of baseline, saturation <or=80%).
RESULTS: The route of placing the feeding tube had no significant effect on the summed rate of bradycardia and desaturation (nasal route: median 1.6, CI 0.8-1.9; oral route: median 1.0, CI 0.9-1.6, p = 0.25).
CONCLUSION: We could not confirm an advantage of placing a feeding tube orally in these infants with AOP, as the oral route did not improve their symptoms of AOP. Possible explanations include: (i) the increase in nasal airway resistance by the 5-Fr nasogastric tube, inserted into the smaller nostril, is too small to have any effect on AOP; (ii) any benefit of the oral route is neutralized by the negative effects of an enhanced vagal stimulation, or (iii) study duration was too short to detect a difference in AOP.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of an oral versus a nasal gastric tube on episodes of hypoxemia and bradycardia in infants with AOP.
METHODS: In a randomized controlled cross-over trial, 32 infants (median gestational age 29 (range 24-31) weeks, postmenstrual age at study 32 (range 30-35) weeks) with the need for tube feeding and symptoms of AOP underwent a 24-hour recording of breathing movements, nasal airflow, heart rate, pulse oximeter saturation and pulse waveforms. A 5-Fr feeding tube was placed orally or nasally for 12 h each, the position selected first was randomly assigned. When the feeding tube was placed nasally, always the smaller nostril was selected. Each infant acted as his/her own control. Recordings were analyzed for the summed rate of bradycardia and desaturation (heart rate <2/3 of baseline, saturation <or=80%).
RESULTS: The route of placing the feeding tube had no significant effect on the summed rate of bradycardia and desaturation (nasal route: median 1.6, CI 0.8-1.9; oral route: median 1.0, CI 0.9-1.6, p = 0.25).
CONCLUSION: We could not confirm an advantage of placing a feeding tube orally in these infants with AOP, as the oral route did not improve their symptoms of AOP. Possible explanations include: (i) the increase in nasal airway resistance by the 5-Fr nasogastric tube, inserted into the smaller nostril, is too small to have any effect on AOP; (ii) any benefit of the oral route is neutralized by the negative effects of an enhanced vagal stimulation, or (iii) study duration was too short to detect a difference in AOP.