Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2020; 37(09): 898-906
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1691767
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Two-Hourly versus Three-Hourly Feeding in Very Low-Birth-Weight Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdul Razak 
1   Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2   Department of Pediatrics, McMaster Children's Hospital, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
Further Information

Publication History

22 December 2018

11 April 2019

Publication Date:
04 June 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the benefits and side effects of 3-hourly versus 2-hourly feeding intervals in very low-birth-weight (VLBW) infants.

Study Design Database search include PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from inception until March 3, 2019. The author extracted the data from included studies and used Cochrane-GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

Results Seven studies—four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three observational studies—involving 952 infants were included in the review. The pooled analyses of RCTs showed no significant differences in the outcomes: time to reach full enteral feeding, necrotizing enterocolitis, feed intolerance, and hypoglycemia. Infants fed 3-hourly regain birth weight earlier than infants fed 2-hourly (3 RCTs; 350 participants; mean difference [95% confidence interval] −1.12 [−2.16 to −0.08]; I2 = 0%; p = 0.04). The evidence was downgraded to low quality due to risk of bias and imprecision for all outcomes. Two studies found a subgroup of infants, younger and smaller, reach full enteral feeds earlier when fed 2-hourly compared with 3-hourly.

Conclusion Low-quality evidence suggests feeding 3-hourly is comparable to 2-hourly feeding in VLBW infants. However, extremely low-birth-weight infants reach full enteral feeds earlier when fed 2-hourly compared with 3-hourly. Further, sufficient powered trials are needed.

Keywords

neonatology - feeding - pediatrics - outcomes - preterm - very low birth weight

Author's Contributions

A.R. solely conceptualized and designed the study, performed the search and initial screening of the articles, abstracted the data, performed initial analyses and assessed the risk of bias, graded of quality of evidence, drafted the manuscript, and approved the final version.


Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 Newell SJ. Gastrointestinal function and its ontogeny: how should we feed the preterm infant?. Semin Neonatol 1996; 1 (01) 59-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dhingra A, Agrawal SK, Kumar P, Narang A. A randomised controlled trial of two feeding schedules in neonates weighing <or=1750 g. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2009; 22 (03) 198-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ibrahim NR, Kheng TH, Nasir A. , et al. Two-hourly versus 3-hourly feeding for very low birthweight infants: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2017; 102 (03) F225-F229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 DeMauro SB, Abbasi S, Lorch S. The impact of feeding interval on feeding outcomes in very low birth-weight infants. J Perinatol 2011; 31 (07) 481-486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Welch V, Petticrew M, Petkovic J. , et al; PRISMA-Equity Bellagio group. Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration. Int J Equity Health 2015; 14 (01) 92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp . Accessed May 2019
    PubMed
  • 7 The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp . Accessed May 2019
    PubMed
  • 8 Schunemann HBrozek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A. , eds. GRADE Handbook for Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations. London, UK: Cochrane; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Rüdiger M, Herrmann S, Schmalisch G, Wauer RR, Hammer H, Tschirch E. Comparison of 2-h versus 3-h enteral feeding in extremely low birth weight infants, commencing after birth. Acta Paediatr 2008; 97 (06) 764-769
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tali SH, Kabra NS, Ahmed J. , et al. Effect of feeding schedule on time to reach full feeds in ELBW and VLBW neonates: a randomized trial. Perinatology-Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Care 2016; 17 (03) 95-102
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Anushree N, Shaw S, Negi V. 2 hourly versus 3 hourly feeding schedule in very low birth weight preterm neonates. Journal of Marine Medical Society. 2018; 20 (02) 96-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Chu E, Freck S, Zhang L, Bhakta KY, Mikhael M. Three-hourly feeding intervals are associated with faster advancement in very preterm infants. Early Hum Dev 2019; 131: 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Binchy Á, Moore Z, Patton D. Feeding intervals in premature infants ≤1750 g: an integrative review. Adv Neonatal Care 2018; 18 (03) 168-178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ibrahim NR, Van Rostenberghe H, Ho JJ. Short versus long feeding interval for bolus feedings in very preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; (08) 1-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar