The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Routine gastric residual volume measurement to guide enteral feeding in mechanically ventilated infants and children: the gastric feasibility study

Routine gastric residual volume measurement to guide enteral feeding in mechanically ventilated infants and children: the gastric feasibility study
Routine gastric residual volume measurement to guide enteral feeding in mechanically ventilated infants and children: the gastric feasibility study

Background: the routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide the initiation and delivery of enteral feeding is widespread in paediatric intensive care and neonatal units, but has little underlying evidence to support it. 

Objective: to answer the question: is a trial of no gastric residual volume measurement feasible in UK paediatric intensive care units and neonatal units?

Design: a mixed-methods study involving five linked work packages in two parallel arms: neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units. Work package 1: a survey of units to establish current UK practice. Work package 2: qualitative interviews with health-care professionals and caregivers of children admitted to either setting. Work package 3: a modified two-round e-Delphi survey to investigate health-care professionals’ opinions on trial design issues and to obtain consensus on outcomes. Work package 4: examination of national databases to determine the potential eligible populations. Work package 5: two consensus meetings of health-care professionals and parents to review the data and agree consensus on outcomes that had not reached consensus in the e-Delphi study. 

Participants and setting: parents of children with experience of ventilation and tube feeding in both neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units, and health-care professionals working in neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units. 

Results: baseline surveys showed that the practice of gastric residual volume measurement was very common (96% in paediatric intensive care units and 65% in neonatal units). Ninety per cent of parents from both neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units supported a future trial, while highlighting concerns around possible delays in detecting complications. Health-care professionals also indicated that a trial was feasible, with 84% of staff willing to participate in a trial. Concerns expressed by junior nurses about the intervention arm of not measuring gastric residual volumes were addressed by developing a simple flow chart and education package. The trial design survey and e-Delphi study gained consensus on 12 paediatric intensive care unit and nine neonatal unit outcome measures, and identified acceptable inclusion and exclusion criteria. Given the differences in physiology, disease processes, environments, staffing and outcomes of interest, two different trials are required in the two settings. Database analyses subsequently showed that trials were feasible in both settings in terms of patient numbers. Of 16,222 children who met the inclusion criteria in paediatric intensive care units, 12,629 stayed for > 3 days. In neonatal units, 15,375 neonates < 32 weeks of age met the inclusion criteria. Finally, the two consensus meetings demonstrated ‘buy-in’ from the wider UK neonatal communities and paediatric intensive care units, and enabled us to discuss and vote on the outcomes that did not achieve consensus in the e-Delphi study.

 Conclusions and future work: two separate UK trials (one in neonatal units and one in paediatric intensive care units) are feasible to conduct, but they cannot be combined as a result of differences in outcome measures and treatment protocols, reflecting the distinctness of the two specialties. 

Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42110505.

1366-5278
Tume, Lyvonne N.
7542175e-6747-424b-928c-6232d2596c97
Woolfall, Kerry
9926fc50-b003-4c93-966c-52618685cb84
Arch, Barbara
dc409ddd-06f1-48bb-a940-cfe16be2eddc
Roper, Louise
726095f3-7fbd-4509-8c96-2f4138e31262
Deja, Elizabeth
4226f22d-99c4-4a35-a731-de8ac60b7221
Jones, Ashley P.
a1049c80-bf8c-455d-bd69-4453036b3895
Latten, Lynne
6ca915c1-d8f6-401d-a332-8cd725dbff99
Pathan, Nazima
4d1ef72a-afc0-4082-b6e0-41fb84c64154
Eccleson, Helen
84d4db8b-df6c-44b0-8060-8f76f4a0ce5b
Hickey, Helen
af0641d7-b523-40e3-8e45-578f5f5b1a74
Parslow, Roger
9cfc7444-7c4d-4ccf-8c81-4c64210367f2
Preston, Jennifer
18278637-bb3f-4663-9ea9-9fbb5dce1430
Beissel, Anne
69d66108-6aa4-4f44-be9a-b7fd93da671d
Andrzejewska, Izabela
1204af6d-67b6-4ddd-ad9c-cb2eeffce178
Gale, Chris
210b7c81-9a39-460a-9ab3-54fe92a69f8e
Valla, Frederic V.
502abf1b-b9e9-45d0-b994-b1e7e3e39ba3
Dorling, Jon
e55dcb9a-a798-41a1-8753-9e9ff8aab630
Tume, Lyvonne N.
7542175e-6747-424b-928c-6232d2596c97
Woolfall, Kerry
9926fc50-b003-4c93-966c-52618685cb84
Arch, Barbara
dc409ddd-06f1-48bb-a940-cfe16be2eddc
Roper, Louise
726095f3-7fbd-4509-8c96-2f4138e31262
Deja, Elizabeth
4226f22d-99c4-4a35-a731-de8ac60b7221
Jones, Ashley P.
a1049c80-bf8c-455d-bd69-4453036b3895
Latten, Lynne
6ca915c1-d8f6-401d-a332-8cd725dbff99
Pathan, Nazima
4d1ef72a-afc0-4082-b6e0-41fb84c64154
Eccleson, Helen
84d4db8b-df6c-44b0-8060-8f76f4a0ce5b
Hickey, Helen
af0641d7-b523-40e3-8e45-578f5f5b1a74
Parslow, Roger
9cfc7444-7c4d-4ccf-8c81-4c64210367f2
Preston, Jennifer
18278637-bb3f-4663-9ea9-9fbb5dce1430
Beissel, Anne
69d66108-6aa4-4f44-be9a-b7fd93da671d
Andrzejewska, Izabela
1204af6d-67b6-4ddd-ad9c-cb2eeffce178
Gale, Chris
210b7c81-9a39-460a-9ab3-54fe92a69f8e
Valla, Frederic V.
502abf1b-b9e9-45d0-b994-b1e7e3e39ba3
Dorling, Jon
e55dcb9a-a798-41a1-8753-9e9ff8aab630

Tume, Lyvonne N., Woolfall, Kerry, Arch, Barbara, Roper, Louise, Deja, Elizabeth, Jones, Ashley P., Latten, Lynne, Pathan, Nazima, Eccleson, Helen, Hickey, Helen, Parslow, Roger, Preston, Jennifer, Beissel, Anne, Andrzejewska, Izabela, Gale, Chris, Valla, Frederic V. and Dorling, Jon (2020) Routine gastric residual volume measurement to guide enteral feeding in mechanically ventilated infants and children: the gastric feasibility study. Health Technology Assessment, 24 (23). (doi:10.3310/hta24230).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: the routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide the initiation and delivery of enteral feeding is widespread in paediatric intensive care and neonatal units, but has little underlying evidence to support it. 

Objective: to answer the question: is a trial of no gastric residual volume measurement feasible in UK paediatric intensive care units and neonatal units?

Design: a mixed-methods study involving five linked work packages in two parallel arms: neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units. Work package 1: a survey of units to establish current UK practice. Work package 2: qualitative interviews with health-care professionals and caregivers of children admitted to either setting. Work package 3: a modified two-round e-Delphi survey to investigate health-care professionals’ opinions on trial design issues and to obtain consensus on outcomes. Work package 4: examination of national databases to determine the potential eligible populations. Work package 5: two consensus meetings of health-care professionals and parents to review the data and agree consensus on outcomes that had not reached consensus in the e-Delphi study. 

Participants and setting: parents of children with experience of ventilation and tube feeding in both neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units, and health-care professionals working in neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units. 

Results: baseline surveys showed that the practice of gastric residual volume measurement was very common (96% in paediatric intensive care units and 65% in neonatal units). Ninety per cent of parents from both neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units supported a future trial, while highlighting concerns around possible delays in detecting complications. Health-care professionals also indicated that a trial was feasible, with 84% of staff willing to participate in a trial. Concerns expressed by junior nurses about the intervention arm of not measuring gastric residual volumes were addressed by developing a simple flow chart and education package. The trial design survey and e-Delphi study gained consensus on 12 paediatric intensive care unit and nine neonatal unit outcome measures, and identified acceptable inclusion and exclusion criteria. Given the differences in physiology, disease processes, environments, staffing and outcomes of interest, two different trials are required in the two settings. Database analyses subsequently showed that trials were feasible in both settings in terms of patient numbers. Of 16,222 children who met the inclusion criteria in paediatric intensive care units, 12,629 stayed for > 3 days. In neonatal units, 15,375 neonates < 32 weeks of age met the inclusion criteria. Finally, the two consensus meetings demonstrated ‘buy-in’ from the wider UK neonatal communities and paediatric intensive care units, and enabled us to discuss and vote on the outcomes that did not achieve consensus in the e-Delphi study.

 Conclusions and future work: two separate UK trials (one in neonatal units and one in paediatric intensive care units) are feasible to conduct, but they cannot be combined as a result of differences in outcome measures and treatment protocols, reflecting the distinctness of the two specialties. 

Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42110505.

Text
3032534 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (2MB)

More information

Published date: May 2020
Additional Information: Funding Information: The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 16/94/02. The contractual start date was in April 2018. The draft report began editorial review in October 2019 and was accepted for publication in January 2020. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report. Declared competing interests of authors: Lyvonne N Tume was a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) panel member during the conduct of the study and is the deputy chairperson of the HTA Prioritisation Committee. Chris Gale reports grants from the Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study; and grants from the NIHR (research grant and fellowship for a Doctor of Philosophy student), the Mason Medical Research Foundation (London, UK), Rosetrees Trust (Edgware, UK) and from the Canadian Institute for Health Research (Ottawa, ON, Canada), outside the submitted work. Chris Gale also reports grants and personal fees from Chiesi Pharmaceuticals (Parma, Italy), outside the submitted work (the grant is for a research study and the personal fee was to support attendance at an educational meeting). Chris Gale is vice-chairperson of the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit London Regional Assessment Panel (2016–present). Frederic V Valla reports personal fees from Baxter International (Deerfield, IL, USA) and personal fees from Nutricia (Zoetermeer, the Netherlands), outside the submitted work. Jon Dorling reports grants from the NIHR and from Nutrinia (Nazareth, Israel), outside the submitted work (the grant from Nutrinia in 2018 was for part of his salary to work as an expert advisor on a trial). Jon Dorling was a member of the NIHR HTA General Board (2017–18) and the NIHR HTA Maternity, Neonatal and Child Health Panel (2013–18). Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 484999
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/484999
ISSN: 1366-5278
PURE UUID: aab4200d-e6d4-4a6f-a075-0bd591e00d7b
ORCID for Jon Dorling: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-1691-3221

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 27 Nov 2023 18:38
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 04:16

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Lyvonne N. Tume
Author: Kerry Woolfall
Author: Barbara Arch
Author: Louise Roper
Author: Elizabeth Deja
Author: Ashley P. Jones
Author: Lynne Latten
Author: Nazima Pathan
Author: Helen Eccleson
Author: Helen Hickey
Author: Roger Parslow
Author: Jennifer Preston
Author: Anne Beissel
Author: Izabela Andrzejewska
Author: Chris Gale
Author: Frederic V. Valla
Author: Jon Dorling ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×