Transpyloric versus gastric tube feeding for preterm infants.
BACKGROUND
Enteral feeding tubes for preterm infants may be placed in the stomach (gastric tube feeding) or in the upper small bowel (transpyloric tube feeding). There are potential advantages and disadvantages to both routes.


OBJECTIVE
In preterm infants who require enteral tube feeding, does feeding via the transpyloric route versus the gastric route improve feeding tolerance, and growth and development, without increasing adverse consequences?


METHODS
The standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. This included electronic searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to December 2001) and of The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2001), and searches of the references in previous reviews including cross references.


METHODS
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing transpyloric with gastric tube feeding in preterm infants.


METHODS
Data were extracted using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by each author and synthesis of data using relative risk and weighted mean difference.


RESULTS
Data from eight trials were available. We did not find any evidence of an effect on growth rates: short term weight gain, weighted mean difference -0.7 g/week (95% confidence interval -25.2, 23.8); short term increase in crown heel length, weighted mean difference -0.7 mm/week (95% confidence interval -2.4, 1.0); short term increase in head circumference, weighted mean difference 0.6 mm/wk (95% confidence interval -0.9, 2.1). Longer term growth was reported in one study. There were not any statistically significant differences between the groups in the mean body weight or occipitofrontal head circumference at three months or at six months corrected age. None of the included studies provided data on neurodevelopmental outcomes during infancy or beyond. Transpyloric feeding was associated with a greater incidence of gastro-intestinal disturbance, RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.05, 2.09. There was some evidence that feeding via the transpyloric route increased mortality, RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.36, 4.46; however, the outcomes of the study that contributed most to this finding were likely to have been affected by selective allocation of the less mature and sicker infants to transpyloric feeding. We did not detect any statistically significant differences in the incidence of other adverse events, including necrotising enterocolitis, intestinal perforation, and aspiration pneumonia.


CONCLUSIONS
We did not find any evidence of benefit, but did find evidence of adverse effects, of transpyloric feeding in preterm infants. Feeding via the transpyloric route cannot be recommended for preterm infants.
Tayside Institute of Child Health, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK, DD1 9SY. w.mcguire@dundee.ac.uk
W
W
McGuire
P
P
McEwan
D004750:Enteral Nutrition / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D007234:Infant, Premature; D011708:Pylorus; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic