Trial reportPediatric cardiology2024
The Impact of Nasal Intubation on Feeding Outcomes in Neonates Requiring Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Control Trial.
Trial report in Pediatric cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05378685 (The Effect of Oral Versus Nasal Intubation on Feeding Outcomes in Neonates Requiring Cardiac Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
The Effect of Oral Versus Nasal Intubation on Feeding Outcomes in Neonates Requiring Cardiac Surgery
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Oral Versus Nasal Intubation in Infants and Young Children with Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Unplanned Extubations Associated with Orotracheal versus Nasotracheal Intubation in Infants.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Preoperative Oral Feeding in Infants with Congenital Heart Disease Within the First Month of Life is Associated with a Higher Likelihood of Freedom From Tube Feeding at Time of Postoperative Discharge.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neonates who require surgery for congenital heart disease (CHD) frequently have difficulty with oral feeds post-operatively and may require a feeding tube at hospital discharge. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of oral or nasal intubation route on feeding method at hospital discharge. This was a non-blinded randomized control trial of 62 neonates who underwent surgery for CHD between 2018 and 2021. Infants in the nasal (25 patients) and oral (37 patients) groups were similar in terms of pre-operative risk factors for feeding difficulties including completed weeks of gestational age at birth (39 vs 38 weeks), birthweight (3530 vs 3100 g), pre-operative PO intake (92% vs 81%), and rate of pre-operative intubation (22% vs 28%). Surgical risk factors were also similar including Society of Thoracic Surgeons-European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery category (3.9 vs 4.1), shunt placement (32% vs 41%), cardiopulmonary bypass time (181 vs 177 min), and cross-clamp time (111 vs 105 min). 96% of nasally intubated patients took full oral feeds by discharge as compared with 78% of orally intubated infants (p = 0.05). Nasally intubated infants reach full oral feeds an average of 3 days earlier than their orally intubated peers. In this cohort of patients, nasally intubated infants reach oral feeds more quickly and are less likely to require supplemental tube feeding in comparison to orally intubated peers. Intubation route is a potential modifiable risk factor for oral aversion and appears safe in neonates. The study was approved by the University of Virginia Institutional Review Board for Health Sciences Research and was retrospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05378685) on May 18, 2022.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37853163What 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.