Nasoduodenal versus nasogastric feeding in the very low birthweight infant

Abstract

The practicality, effectiveness, and safety of feeding very low birthweight infants (less than 1,300 gm) by continuous nasoduodenal infusion was assessed by comparison with continuous nasogastric feeding. The nasoduodenal group appeared to have a clear advantage over the nasogastric group for the overall period in terms of caloric intake (131 cal/kg/day vs. 106 cal/kg/day), average weight gain (16 gm/day vs. 10 gm/day), and safety. This advantage was even more striking in the first two weeks of life. A caloric intake of 120 cal/kg/day could be reached within 48 to 72 hours after tube placement in the nasoduodenal group but only after a week in the nasogastric group. Nasoduodenal feeding resulted in faster weight gain than comparable published data on conventional feeding, peripheral intravenous alimentation, and parenteral alimentation. There were no cases of aspiration associated with tubes placed in the duodenum whereas two cases of aspiration pneumonia were associated with tubes placed in the stomach. With the tip of the catheter in the duodenum, none of the complications reported with nasojejunal tubes (intussusception, perforation, or necrotizing enterocolitis) were seen, either in the initial pilot study reported here or in 50 additional infants.