Impact of an Infant-Driven Feeding Initiative on Feeding Outcomes in the Preterm Neonate.

BACKGROUND: Poor feeding techniques result in adverse outcomes for preterm infants. Infant-driven feeding (IDF) is a structured feeding method that standardizes neonatal cue-based feedings, and matches the neurodevelopmental stage of the preterm infant. The purpose of this quality improvement project is to assess whether initiation of an IDF initiative impacts time from first nipple feed (NF) to full NF and to discharge in infants born before 35 weeks' gestational age. Secondary aims include assessment of the impact of IDF on neonatal growth and feasibility of following an IDF protocol in a level III neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). METHODS: This quality improvement project assesses differences in time to first NF, length of hospital stay, and neonatal growth before and after usage of an IDF protocol. Eighty infants were included, 40 prior to and 40 after IDF intervention. Nurses were trained on IDF philosophy and methods prior to initiation. RESULTS: IDF was associated with discharge at a younger corrected gestational age (CGA), attainment of ad lib feeds at a younger CGA, and shorter amount of days between first NF and discharge. Infants utilizing IDF had slower weight gain, demonstrated by a larger drop in z score in the IDF group. The medical team and bedside nurses were able to follow the IDF protocol with few exceptions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE/RESEARCH: IDF allows for optimization of a preterm infant's NICU stay and prepares infants for a safe discharge sooner. This could lead to increased parental satisfaction and decreased hospital cost. Further studies are indicated to ensure these benefits remain and focus on impact direct breastfeeding plays in the IDF model.

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for women with stage 1A1 and stage 1A2 cervical cancer: A retrospective database cohort study.

Background: Recent studies comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer have reported a worse overall survival with minimally invasive surgery (MIS). However, in the patients with microscopic disease, there was no survival difference and the optimal surgical approach for microscopic cervical cancer remains unclear. Methods: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified a cohort of women who underwent hysterectomy as the primary treatment for stage IA1/IA2 cervical cancer between January 2010 and December 2016. Using multivariable logistic regression, our primary outcome was to compare overall survival between the open and MIS groups. The data was stratified for simple and radical hysterectomies. Secondary endpoint was comparison of readmission rates and length of stay (LOS). Results: We identified 6230 patients with stage IA1 and IA2 cervical cancer that underwent hysterectomy as primary treatment. 4054 of these women (65%) underwent MIS. There was no difference in age, lympho-vascular invasion, number of lymph nodes retrieved and histology between the two groups. In the overall cohort, there was no difference in survival between the open and the MIS group (Hazard ratio for the open group 1.23; CI 0.92-1.63). Post-operative radiation therapy was more common in the open group (5.24% vs 4.09%, p value < 0.02). The mean LOS (1.35 days vs 3.08 days) was shorter in MIS group (p value < 0.0001). No difference was found in the readmission rates (60% for the MIS group vs 55% for the open group; p value 0.14). Conclusions: Our data suggest that MIS is associated with similar overall survival and shorter length of hospital stay compared to the open hysterectomy in women with stage IA cervical cancer. Based on this large data set, MIS appears to be a safe and effective surgical approach for women with stage IA1/IA2 cervical cancer.