SP3 Evaluating the impact of concentrated standardised parenteral nutrition on growth of preterm infants
Authors: Stachow Lucy , Kwok T’ng Chang , Snuggs Ramune , Toyer Rowan , Oyewole Emmanuel , Panjwani Deepa , Effendi Kamil 
Published: August 2020

Background and Aim

Concentrated standardised parenteral nutrition (CSPN) may reduce the delay in commencing parenteral nutrition (PN) in preterm infants compared with conventional individualised PN. Optimisation of early nutrition, with emphasis on earlier commencement of PN to include amino acids and addition of lipids within 24 hours of birth, ameliorates early postnatal growth failure.1 2 Cumulative nutritional deficit often seen in significantly preterm infants may lead to poor neurodevelopmental outcome.3 4 CSPN was introduced in our neonatal unit in December 2017 with the objective of improving early nutrition. The aim of this service evaluation was to assess the suitability of CSPN and its impact on the growth of preterm infants in our tertiary level neonatal unit.

Methods

In December 2017, the neonatal PN provided was switched from individualised PN to CSPN based on a modified ‘SCAMP’ regimen. Retrospective and prospective growth parameter data was collected for infants receiving PN within 24 hours of birth born between September to November 2017 (individualised PN arm) and from September to November 2018 (CSPN arm). Infants were excluded if they died or transferred out of the local neonatal service before day 28 of life, or died before transitioning from PN to full enteral feeds. Weight and head circumference at birth, 28 days old and 36 weeks corrected gestation/discharge were converted to z scores using the LMS method. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare continuous data. Annual PN expenditure, and wastage of ordered PN, before and after the switch to CSPN, was calculated using the pharmacy stock management system, pharmacist and finance records.

Results

20 infants (mean gestational age 28 weeks) and 21 infants (mean gestational age 29.6 weeks) were included in the CSPN and individualised PN groups respectively. There were no differences in demographic data of each group. CSPN was commenced earlier (median 8 hours old (n=20)) than individualised PN (median 25 hours old (n=19)), (U=42, p<0.0001). There was no statistical difference in the change in weight z score from birth at 28 days old (median -0.47 (n=20) CSPN vs -0.66 (n=19) individualised PN, U=178.5, p=0.75) and at 36 weeks corrected gestation/discharge (median -0.72 (n=20) CSPN vs -0.86 (n=21) individualised PN, U=106, p=0.7). There was insufficient data collected to analyse effect on head circumference. Replacing individualised PN with CSPN resulted in a 37% reduction in procurement costs, despite an increase in the wastage of ordered PN from 7.2% to 8.5%.

Conclusion

A PN strategy using concentrated standardised PN can be implemented successfully in a tertiary neonatal unit setting in the United Kingdom and allows earlier commencement of PN. Use of CSPN appeared to have no adverse effect on weight gain, although small sample size may account for the lack of statistical significance in improvement of weight z score seen. Improved rates of head circumference documentation for our patients are required. Introducing CSPN resulted in a considerable reduction in procurement costs, and identifying strategies to minimise wastage of CSPN bags would further improve cost-effectiveness.

References

Morgan C, McGowan P, Herwitker S, et al. Postnatal head growth in preterm infants: a randomised controlled parenteral nutrition study. Pediatrics 2014;133:e120–8.

Moyses HE, Johnson MJ, Leaf AA, et al. Early parenteral nutrition and growth outcomes in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 2013;97:816–26.

Ehrenkranz RA, Dusick AM, Vohr BR, et al. Growth in the neonatal intensive care unit influences neurodevelopmental and growth outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2006;117:1253–61.

Dusick AM, Poindexter BB, Ehrenkranz RA, et al. Growth failure in the preterm infant: can we catch up?Semin Perinatol 2003;27:302–10.