ArticleWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2019
[Parenteral nutrition in premature babies with a birth weight <1500g: a systematic single-center analysis and comparison with current guidelines].
Article in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParenteral and enteral nutrition are essential for both growth and development of preterm infants. Based on the results of many studies, the rate of nutritional growth and the amount of substrate delivered parenterally are under debate.
objectiveThe main aim of this study was to assess parenteral nutrition in very and extremely immature preterm infants, i.e. very low birth weight (VLBW, birth weight <1500g) and extremely low birth weight (ELBW, birth weight <1000g) neonates, and to compare the amount of parenterally delivered substrate in our neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) to current German guidelines.
methodsRetrospective audit at our tertiary NICU at the University Children's Hospital of Saarland, Homburg, Germany between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010.
resultsIn total, 100 premature neonates were included. The mean gestational age was 29.6 weeks (range 24.4-34.1 weeks) and the mean birth weight was 1119 g ± 260 g (range 570 g-1490 g). Comparing the amount of fluids, glucose, amino acids, lipids and kcals with the current guidelines of the German Society for Nutritional Medicine in preterm infants, only glucose was adequately given; however, a substantial number of weight-dependent (more often in ELBW neonates) episodes of hyperglycemia requiring insulin treatment were also seen. During the first 3 weeks of life a substantial drop in body weight, length and head circumference occurred in our study cohort. In contrast, at 2 years corrected age, catch-up growth was seen in our cohort with anthropometric data now comparable to healthy term infants. Using the Bayley II test for developmental outcome assessment, at 2 years corrected age 78.6% (33/42) of infants demonstrated normal development.
conclusionsThis retrospective data analysis demonstrated inadequate provision of parenteral nutrition in our NICU, which was often not in line with current German guidelines. This was associated with inadequate growth in our cohort, most notably during the first 3 weeks of life; however, implementation of current guidelines is impeded by metabolic disturbances in this cohort, most notably in ELBW neonates. Whether adherence to published guidelines will result in better early ex utero growth, and whether this normalized growth pattern will translate into better long-term outcome on a metabolic and neurological level, remains unclear.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.