RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Textbooks recognize the controversy of concomitant enteral nutrition (EN) during umbilical catheter usage in high-risk newborns, but support for the practice varies. There is only one clinical trial examining these practices in a small but randomized, controlled trial of enterally fed newborns with umbilical arterial catheters (UACs) in situ, and that trial did not demonstrate any adverse consequences. We speculate that concomitant EN with umbilical catheter usage is more common than some textbooks suggest-practiced by at least 20% of all US neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of NICUs where high-risk newborns with UAC or umbilical venous catheter (UVC) placement receive concomitant EN. METHODS: Medical Directors listed in the American Academy of Pediatrics United States Neonatologist and Perinatologist Directory were surveyed by mail. On return of surveys, responses to multiple choice questions were recorded by electronic scanning and validated by manually conducted quality control checks. NICU identities were recorded by code to maintain anonymity. RESULTS: Following 2 requests for survey participation, 70% (549/785) of surveys were returned. Respectively, 82% and 62% of NICUs with and without training programs were represented. On average, surveyed medical directors had practiced neonatal medicine 18.1 +/- 0.3 years. Of surveyed NICUs, 99% reported placement of UVCs and UACs. Of the 92% believing that it is safe to provide trophic EN to newborns with UVCs in place, 51% practiced this some of the time, and 37% practiced it most of the time. By comparison, it was reported that newborns with UACs in place receive trophic EN most of the time (30%), some of the time (49%), or none of the time (22%). Of the 80% believing that it is safe to provide more complete EN to newborns with UVCs in place, 44% practiced this some of the time, and 24% practiced it most of the time. For newborns with UACs in place, more complete EN was provided most of the time (15%), some of the time (36%), or none of the time (49%). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent UVC and UAC usage with EN is more commonly practiced than suggested in textbooks or published articles. The relative risk-benefit profiles of these practices remain uncertain secondary to the limited number of controlled clinical observations and to the infrequent occurrence of adverse events. A prospective, multicenter, controlled trial would address the continued advisability of these unexpectedly common practices.
