Push versus gravity for intermittent bolus gavage tube feeding of preterm and low birth weight infants

Background Many small, sick, and preterm infants are unable to co‐ordinate sucking, swallowing, and breathing, and therefore require gavage feeding. In gavage feeding, milk feeds are delivered through a tube passed via the nose or the mouth into the stomach. Intermittent bolus milk feeds may be administered by a syringe to gently push milk into the infant's stomach (push feed). Alternatively, milk can be poured into a syringe attached to the tube and allowed to drip in by gravity (gravity feed). Objectives To determine whether use of push feeding compared with gravity feeding results in more rapid establishment of full gavage feeds without increasing adverse events among preterm or low birth weight infants, or both, who require intermittent bolus tube feeding. Search methods We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 7), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), on 30 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs. Selection criteria We included RCTs and quasi‐RCTs comparing push versus gravity intermittent gavage tube feeding in preterm (less than 37 weeks' gestation) or low birth weight (less than 2500 grams) infants, or both. Data collection and analysis We assessed the methods of trials regarding blinding of randomisation and outcome measurement. We evaluated treatment effects with a fixed‐effect model using risk ratio (RR), relative risk reduction, risk difference (RD), and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for categorical data; and using mean, standard deviation, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We analysed outcomes measured as count data, for example, frequency of apnoea, bradycardia, and episodes of pulse oximeter oxygen (SpO₂) desaturation, by comparing rates of events and the rate ratio. We evaluated heterogeneity to help determine the suitability of pooling results. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Main results One small cross‐over trial (31 infants) met the criteria for inclusion in this review. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low due to imprecision of estimates, wide confidence interva