Two-Hourly versus Three-Hourly Feeding in Very Low-Birth-Weight Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the benefits and side effects of 3-hourly versus 2-hourly feeding intervals in very low-birth-weight (VLBW) infants. Study Design Database search include PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from inception until March 3, 2019. The author extracted the data from included studies and used Cochrane-GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. Results Seven studies—four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three observational studies—involving 952 infants were included in the review. The pooled analyses of RCTs showed no significant differences in the outcomes: time to reach full enteral feeding, necrotizing enterocolitis, feed intolerance, and hypoglycemia. Infants fed 3-hourly regain birth weight earlier than infants fed 2-hourly (3 RCTs; 350 participants; mean difference [95% confidence interval] −1.12 [−2.16 to −0.08]; I2 = 0%; p = 0.04). The evidence was downgraded to low quality due to risk of bias and imprecision for all outcomes. Two studies found a subgroup of infants, younger and smaller, reach full enteral feeds earlier when fed 2-hourly compared with 3-hourly. Conclusion Low-quality evidence suggests feeding 3-hourly is comparable to 2-hourly feeding in VLBW infants. However, extremely low-birth-weight infants reach full enteral feeds earlier when fed 2-hourly compared with 3-hourly. Further, sufficient powered trials are needed.