Practical approach to paediatric enteral nutrition: a comment by the ESPGHAN committee on nutrition

Enteral nutrition support (ENS) involves both the delivery of nutrients via feeding tubes and the provision of specialised oral nutritional supplements. ENS is indicated in a patient with at least a partially functioning digestive tract when oral intake is inadequate or intake of normal food is inappropriate to meet the patients' needs. The aim of this comment by the Committee on Nutrition of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition is to provide a clinical practice guide to ENS, based on the available evidence and the clinical expertise of the authors. Statements and recommendations are presented, and future research needs highlighted, with a particular emphasis placed on a practical approach to ENS.Among the wide array of enteral formulations, standard polymeric feeds based on cow's-milk protein with fibre and age adapted for energy and nutrient content are suitable for most paediatric patients. Whenever possible, intragastric is preferred to postpyloric delivery of nutrients, and intermittent feeding is preferred to continuous feeding because it is more physiological. An anticipated duration of enteral nutrition (EN) exceeding 4 to 6 weeks is an indication for gastrostomy or enterostomy. Among the various gastrostomy techniques available, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is currently the first option. In general, both patients and caregivers express satisfaction with this procedure, although it is associated with a number of well-recognised complications. We strongly recommend the development and application of procedural protocols that include scrupulous attention to hygiene, as well as regular monitoring by a multidisciplinary nutrition support team to minimise the risk of EN-associated complications

Development of a neonatal adverse event severity scale through a Delphi consensus approach

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the seriousness, expectedness and causality are necessary for any adverse event (AE) in a clinical trial. In addition, assessing AE severity helps determine the importance of the AE in the clinical setting. Standardisation of AE severity criteria could make safety information more reliable and comparable across trials. Although standardised AE severity scales have been developed in other research fields, they are not suitable for use in neonates. The development of an AE severity scale to facilitate the conduct and interpretation of neonatal clinical trials is therefore urgently needed. METHODS: A stepwise consensus process was undertaken within the International Neonatal Consortium (INC) with input from all relevant stakeholders. The consensus process included several rounds of surveys (based on a Delphi approach), face-to-face meetings and a pilot validation. RESULTS: Neonatal AE severity was classified by five grades (mild, moderate, severe, life threatening or death). AE severity in neonates was defined by the effect of the AE on age appropriate behaviour, basal physiological functions and care changes in response to the AE. Pilot validation of the generic criteria revealed κ=0.23 and guided further refinement. This generic scale was applied to 35 typical and common neonatal AEs resulting in the INC neonatal AE severity scale (NAESS) V.1.0, which is now publicly available. DISCUSSION: The INC NAESS is an ongoing effort that will be continuously updated. Future perspectives include further validation and the development of a training module for users.status: publishe