MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3172783899 · doi:10.3310/hta25360

Nutritional management in newborn babies receiving therapeutic hypothermia: two retrospective observational studies using propensity score matching

2021· article· en· W3172783899 sur OpenAlexaff
Chris Gale, Dusha Jeyakumaran, Cheryl Battersby, Kayleigh Ougham, Shalini Ojha, Lucy Culshaw, Ella Selby, Jon Dorling, Nicholas T. Longford

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth Technology Assessment · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Établissements canadiensDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesHealth Technology Assessment ProgrammeArts and Humanities Research CouncilRosetrees TrustDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMedical Research CouncilChiesi Farmaceutici
Mots-clésPropensity score matchingObservational studyMedicineRetrospective cohort studyHypothermiaPediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background Therapeutic hypothermia is standard of care for babies with moderate to severe hypoxic–ischaemic encephalopathy. There is limited evidence to inform provision of nutrition during hypothermia. Objectives To assess the association during therapeutic hypothermia between (1) enteral feeding and outcomes, such as necrotising enterocolitis and (2) parenteral nutrition and outcomes, such as late-onset bloodstream infection. Design A retrospective cohort study using data held in the National Neonatal Research Database and applying propensity score methodology to form matched groups for analysis. Setting NHS neonatal units in England, Wales and Scotland. Participants Babies born at ≥ 36 gestational weeks between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2017 who received therapeutic hypothermia for 72 hours or who died during treatment. Interventions Enteral feeding analysis – babies who were enterally fed during therapeutic hypothermia (intervention) compared with babies who received no enteral feeds during therapeutic hypothermia (control). Parenteral nutrition analysis – babies who received parenteral nutrition during therapeutic hypothermia (intervention) compared with babies who received no parenteral nutrition during therapeutic hypothermia (control). Outcome measures Primary outcomes were severe and pragmatically defined necrotising enterocolitis (enteral feeding analysis) and late-onset bloodstream infection (parenteral nutrition analysis). Secondary outcomes were survival at neonatal discharge, length of neonatal stay, breastfeeding at discharge, onset of breastfeeding, time to first maternal breast milk, hypoglycaemia, number of days with a central line in situ, duration of parenteral nutrition, time to full enteral feeds and growth. Results A total of 6030 babies received therapeutic hypothermia. Thirty-one per cent of babies received enteral feeds and 25% received parenteral nutrition. Seven babies (0.1%) were diagnosed with severe necrotising enterocolitis, and further comparative analyses were not conducted on this outcome. A total of 3236 babies were included in the matched enteral feeding analysis. Pragmatically defined necrotising enterocolitis was rare in both groups (0.5% vs. 1.1%) and was lower in babies who were fed during hypothermia (rate difference –0.5%, 95% confidence interval –1.0% to –0.1%; p = 0.03). Higher survival to discharge (96.0% vs. 90.8%, rate difference 5.2%, 95% confidence interval 3.9% to 6.6%; p < 0.001) and higher breastfeeding at discharge (54.6% vs. 46.7%, rate difference 8.0%, 95% confidence interval 5.1% to 10.8%; p < 0.001) rates were observed in enterally fed babies who also had a shorter neonatal stay (mean difference –2.2 days, 95% confidence interval –3.0 to –1.2 days). A total of 2480 babies were included in the matched parenteral nutrition analysis. Higher levels of late-onset bloodstream infection were seen in babies who received parenteral nutrition (0.3% vs. 0.9%, rate difference 0.6%, 95% confidence interval 0.1% to 1.2%; p = 0.03). Survival was lower in babies who did not receive parenteral nutrition (90.0% vs. 93.1%, rate difference 3.1%, 95% confidence interval 1.5% to 4.7%; p < 0.001). Limitations Propensity score methodology can address imbalances in observed confounders only. Residual confounding by unmeasured or poorly recorded variables cannot be ruled out. We did not analyse by type or volume of enteral or parenteral nutrition. Conclusions Necrotising enterocolitis is rare in babies receiving therapeutic hypothermia, and the introduction of enteral feeding is associated with a lower risk of pragmatically defined necrotising enterocolitis and other beneficial outcomes, including rates of higher survival and breastfeeding at discharge. Receipt of parenteral nutrition during therapeutic hypothermia is associated with a higher rate of late-onset infection but lower mortality. These results support introduction of enteral feeding during therapeutic hypothermia. Future work Randomised trials to assess parenteral nutrition during therapeutic hypothermia. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN474042962. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 25, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,124
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,788

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,180
Tête enseignante GPT0,416
Écart entre enseignants0,236 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations15
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth Technology AssessmentMême sujetNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyTravaux en français237 207