The evidence available from r and omised controlled trials suggested that delaying the introduction of progressive enteral feeds beyond four days after birth did not reduce the risk of developing NEC in very preterm or VLBW infants , including growth-restricted infants .
Delaying the introduction of progressive enteral feeds result ed in a few days ' delay in establishing full enteral feeds but the clinical importance of this effect was unclear .
BACKGROUND The introduction of enteral feeds for very preterm ( less than 32 weeks ' gestation ) or very low birth weight ( VLBW ; less than 1500 g ) infants is often delayed for several days or longer after birth due to concern that early introduction may not be tolerated and may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis ( NEC ) .
However , delaying enteral feeding could diminish the functional adaptation of the gastrointestinal tract and prolong the need for parenteral nutrition with its attendant infectious and metabolic risks .
OBJECTIVES To determine the effect of delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds on the incidence of NEC , mortality and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants .
Enteral feeding regimens and necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants: a multicentre case–control study
Background : Most preterm infants who develop necrotising enterocolitis ( NEC )  have received enteral feeds . Uncertainty exists about which aspects of the feeding regimen affect the risk of NEC . Aim : To examine associations between various enteral feeding practice s and the development of  NEC  in preterm infants . Methods : Multicentre case – control study . 53 preterm infants with NEC were enrolled together with a gestational age frequency-matched control without NEC from a r and omly selected neonatal unit . Clinical and feeding data were extracted and compared between the groups . Results : Significantly fewer cases than controls had received human breast milk ( 75 % vs 91 % ; OR 0.32 , 95 % CI 0.11 to 0.98 ) . The day on which enteral feeding was started did not differ significantly ( mean ( SD ) days after birth : cases 2.9 ( 2.8 ) and controls 2.8 ( 1.8 ) ) . The mean ( SD ) duration of trophic feeding ( < 1 ml/kg/h ) was significantly shorter in the cases ( 3.3 ( 3.1 ) days ) than controls ( 6.2 ( 6.7 ) days ) ( mean difference ( MD ) −2.9 , 95 % CI −4.9 to −0.9 ) days . Cases were fully fed significantly earlier than controls ( mean ( SD ) days after birth : cases 9.9 ( 4.2 ) and controls 14.3 ( 9.8 ) ; MD −4.4 , 95 % CI −7.3 to −1.5 ) . Conclusions : These data suggest that the duration of trophic feeding and rate of advancement of feed volumes may be modifiable risk factors for NEC in preterm infants . Further r and omised controlled trials are warranted to assess the effect of different rates of feed advancement on the incidence of NEC , as well as other outcomes
The evidence available from r and omised controlled trials suggested that delaying the introduction of progressive enteral feeds beyond four days after birth did not reduce the risk of developing NEC in very preterm or VLBW infants , including growth-restricted infants .
Delaying the introduction of progressive enteral feeds result ed in a few days ' delay in establishing full enteral feeds but the clinical importance of this effect was unclear .
BACKGROUND The introduction of enteral feeds for very preterm ( less than 32 weeks ' gestation ) or very low birth weight ( VLBW ; less than 1500 g ) infants is often delayed for several days or longer after birth due to concern that early introduction may not be tolerated and may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis ( NEC ) .
However , delaying enteral feeding could diminish the functional adaptation of the gastrointestinal tract and prolong the need for parenteral nutrition with its attendant infectious and metabolic risks .
OBJECTIVES To determine the effect of delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds on the incidence of NEC , mortality and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants .