Background and Objective:
Strategies to transition preterm infants from tube to oral feeding vary greatly and the transition may take days to weeks. The study objective was to evaluate the effect of parental guided responsive feeding (PGRF) on this transition.
Methods:
We conducted a randomized controlled trial on infants born at <32 weeks gestation. The PGRF intervention was performed by parents, and included feeding intervals and volumes which were guided by the infants' behavioral cues of hunger and satiety. If a minimum volume was not taken orally, an intermediate volume was supplemented via nasogastric tube. The control group was traditionally fed (TF), with pre-planned volumes of intake and at given scheduled intervals.
Results:
The study comprised 67 infants (PGRF 32, TF 35). PGRF infants reached full oral feeding within less days (median 2 vs. 8 days,
p
= 0.001), at an earlier age (median 34.28 vs. 35.14 weeks,
p
< 0.001), returned to baseline weight gain at 35 weeks (1.77 ± 0.70 vs. 1.25 ± 0.63 g/kg/day,
p
= 0.002), were discharged earlier (36.34 ± 0.6 vs. 36.86 ± 0.9 weeks,
p
= 0.001), were more likely to be fed by their parents (
p
< 0.001), and experienced less apnea/bradycardia events at 34 weeks (median 3.5 vs. 9 per week
p
= 0.047) compared to the TF infants. The regression model demonstrated that independent variables predicted 43.7% of the variance of time to full oral feeding [
F
(9, 65)
= 4.84
p
< 0.001]. The only significant variable was feeding group (
B
= −6.43
p
< 0.001); The PGRF infants were more likely to reach full oral feeding earlier.
Conclusion:
PGRF is safe, and associated with short-term advantages, higher parental engagement, and earlier discharge.
Clinical Trial Registration:
Identifier: SHEBA-12-9574-IM-CTIL; “Adjusted Individual Oral Feeding for Improving Short and Long Term Outcomes of Preterm Infants.”
BackgroundThe use of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) has recently allowed significant improvements in cancer treatment. Foundation Medicine® (FM) provides a genomic profiling test based on NGS for a variety of cancers. However, it is unclear if the Foundation Medicine test would result in a better outcome than the standard on-site molecular testing. In this retrospective chart review, we identified the FM cases from an academic Canadian hospital and determined whether these test results improved treatment options for those patients.Materials and MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on patients with solid tumors who had FM testing between May 1, 2014 and May 1, 2018. Clinical factors and outcomes were measured using descriptive statistics using Microsoft Excel® Software.ResultsOut of 66 FM tests, eight patients (= 12%) had a direct change in therapy based on the FM tests. Identified were 285 oncogenic mutations (median 1, range 0–31); where TP53 (n = 31, 10.9%), CDKN2A (n = 19, 6.7%), KRAS (n = 16, 5.6%) and APC (n = 9, 3.2%) were the most common FM mutations identified.ConclusionA small proportion of FM reports identified actionable mutations and led to direct treatment change. FM testing is expensive and a few of the identified mutations are now part of routine on-site testing. NGS testing is likely to become more widespread, but this research suggests that its true clinical impact may be restricted to a minority of patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.