Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

The value of routine evaluation of gastric residuals in very low birth weight infants

Journal of Perinatology volume 35, pages 57–60 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective:

Little information exists regarding gastric residual (GR) evaluation prior to feedings in premature infants. The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of feedings at 2 and 3 weeks of age, number of days to full feedings, growth and incidence of complications between infants who underwent RGR (routine evaluation of GR) evaluation versus those who did not.

Study Design:

Sixty-one premature infants were randomized to one of two groups. Group 1 received RGR evaluation prior to feeds and Group 2 did not.

Result:

There was no difference in amount of feeding at 2 (P=0.66) or 3 (P=0.41) weeks of age, growth, days on parenteral nutrition or complications. Although not statistically significant, infants without RGR evaluation reached feeds of 150 ml kg−1 per day 6 days earlier and had 6 fewer days with central venous access.

Conclusion:

Results suggest RGR evaluation may not improve nutritional outcomes in premature infants.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jadcherla SR, Kliegman RM . Studies of feeding intolerance in very low birth weight infants: definition and significance. Pediatrics 2002; 109 (3): 516–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Meetz WH, Valentine C, McGuigan JE, Conlon M, Sacks N, Neu J . Gastrointestinal priming prior to full enteral nutrition in very low birth weight infants. J Pediatr Gastroent Nutr 1992; 15 (2): 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mihatsch WA, von Schoenaich P, Fahnenstich H, Dehne N, Ebbecke H, Plath C . The significance of gastric residuals in the early enteral feeding advancement of extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2002; 109 (3): 457–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cobb BA, Carlo WA, Ambalavanan N . Gastric residuals and their relationship to necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2004; 113 (1 Pt 1): 50–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Flidel-Rimon O, Branski D, Shinwell ES . The fear of necrotizing enterocolitis versus achieving optimal growth in preterm infants—an opinion. Acta Paediatr. 2006; 95 (11): 1341–1344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kliegman RM . Experimental validation of neonatal feeding practices. Pediatrics 1999; 103 (2): 492–493.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Neu J . Is it time to stop starving premature infants? J Perinatol 2009; 29 (6): 399–400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Torrazza RM, Neu J . Evidence-based guidelines for optimization of nutrition for the very low birthweight infant. Neo Rev 2013; 14 (7): e340–e349.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Goldstein B, Giroir B, Randolph A International Consensus Conference on Pediatrics. International pediatric sepsis consensus conference: definitions for sepsis and organ dysfunction in pediatrics. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine: a Journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies 2005; 6 (1): 2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stephens BE, Walden RV, Gargus RA, Tucker R, McKinley L, Mance M et al. First-week protein and energy intakes are associated with 18-month developmental outcomes in extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2009; 123 (5): 1337–1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kuschel CA, Harding JE . Multicomponent fortified human milk for promoting growth in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (1): CD000343.

  12. Riezzo G, Indrio F, Montagna O, Tripaldi C, Laforgia N, Chiloiro M et al. Gastric electrical activity and gastric emptying in term and preterm newborns. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2000; 12 (3): 223–229.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lau C, Smith EO, Schanler RJ . Coordination of suck-swallow and swallow respiration in preterm infants. Acta Paediatr 2003; 92 (6): 721–727.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Omari TI, Barnett C, Snel A, Goldsworthy W, Haslam R, Davidson G et al. Mechanisms of gastroesophageal reflux in healthy premature infants. J Pediatr 1998; 133 (5): 650–654.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Liang J, Co E, Zhang M, Pineda J, Chen JD . Development of gastric slow waves in preterm infants measured by electrogastrography. Am J Physiol 1998; 274 (3 Pt 1): 503–508.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Berseth CL . Gestational evolution of small intestine motility in preterm and term infants. J Pediatr 1989; 115 (4): 646–651.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Shulman RJ, Ou C-N, Smith EOB . Evaluation of potential factors predicting attainment of full gavage feedings in preterm infants. Neonatology 2010; 99 (1): 38–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Parker LA, Neu J, Torrazza RM, Li Y . Scientifically based strategies for enteral feeding in premature infants. Neo Rev 2013; 14 (7): e350–e359.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bertino E, Giuliani F, Prandi G, Coscia A, Martano C, Fabris C . Necrotizing enterocolitis: risk factor analysis and role of gastric residuals in very low birth weight infants. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2009; 48 (4): 437–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cole CR, Hansen NI, Higgins RD, Bell EF, Shankaran S, Laptook AR et al. Bloodstream infections in very low birth weight infants with intestinal failure. J Pediatr 2012; 160 (1): 54–59 e52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr Murgas’s work was funded by a Gerber Foundation Novice Research Grant. Dr Parker’s work has been funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    R M Torrazza & J Neu

  2. College of Nursing, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA,

    L A Parker

  3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA,

    Y Li

  4. Shands Hospital, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA,

    E Talaga

  5. Department of Health Outcomes and Policy, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    J Shuster

Authors
  1. R M Torrazza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L A Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Y Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E Talaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J Shuster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J Neu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L A Parker.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Dr Neu claims disclosures but no conflict of interest. Disclosures include Scientific Advisory Panel: Medela and Mead Johnson, Consultant: Infant Microbial Therapeutics, Lecturer: Nestle, Abbott, Mead Johnson, and Danone. Drs Li, Shuster, Neu and Beth Talaga declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Torrazza, R., Parker, L., Li, Y. et al. The value of routine evaluation of gastric residuals in very low birth weight infants. J Perinatol 35, 57–60 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2014.147

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2014.147

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links