MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Gale, Dusha Jeyakumaran, Cheryl Battersby, Kayleigh Ougham, Shalini Ojha, Lucy Culshaw, Ella Selby, Jon Dorling, Nicholas T. Longford

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Technology Assessment · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersHealth Technology Assessment ProgrammeArts and Humanities Research CouncilRosetrees TrustDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMedical Research CouncilChiesi Farmaceutici
KeywordsPropensity score matchingObservational studyMedicineRetrospective cohort studyHypothermiaPediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Technology AssessmentSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207