Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2020 May;24(23):1–120. doi: 10.3310/hta24230

Routine gastric residual volume measurement to guide enteral feeding in mechanically ventilated infants and children: the GASTRIC feasibility study.

Lyvonne N Tume, Kerry Woolfall, Barbara Arch, Louise Roper, Elizabeth Deja, Ashley P Jones, Lynne Latten, Nazima Pathan, Helen Eccleson, Helen Hickey, Roger Parslow, Jennifer Preston, Anne Beissel, Izabela Andrzejewska, Chris Gale, Frederic V Valla, Jon Dorling
PMCID: PMC7294397  PMID: 32458797

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide the initiation and delivery of enteral feeding is widespread in paediatric intensive care and neonatal units, but has little underlying evidence to support it.

OBJECTIVE

To answer the question: is a trial of no gastric residual volume measurement feasible in UK paediatric intensive care units and neonatal units?

DESIGN

A mixed-methods study involving five linked work packages in two parallel arms: neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units. Work package 1: a survey of units to establish current UK practice. Work package 2: qualitative interviews with health-care professionals and caregivers of children admitted to either setting. Work package 3: a modified two-round e-Delphi survey to investigate health-care professionals' opinions on trial design issues and to obtain consensus on outcomes. Work package 4: examination of national databases to determine the potential eligible populations. Work package 5: two consensus meetings of health-care professionals and parents to review the data and agree consensus on outcomes that had not reached consensus in the e-Delphi study.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Parents of children with experience of ventilation and tube feeding in both neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units, and health-care professionals working in neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units.

RESULTS

Baseline surveys showed that the practice of gastric residual volume measurement was very common (96% in paediatric intensive care units and 65% in neonatal units). Ninety per cent of parents from both neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units supported a future trial, while highlighting concerns around possible delays in detecting complications. Health-care professionals also indicated that a trial was feasible, with 84% of staff willing to participate in a trial. Concerns expressed by junior nurses about the intervention arm of not measuring gastric residual volumes were addressed by developing a simple flow chart and education package. The trial design survey and e-Delphi study gained consensus on 12 paediatric intensive care unit and nine neonatal unit outcome measures, and identified acceptable inclusion and exclusion criteria. Given the differences in physiology, disease processes, environments, staffing and outcomes of interest, two different trials are required in the two settings. Database analyses subsequently showed that trials were feasible in both settings in terms of patient numbers. Of 16,222 children who met the inclusion criteria in paediatric intensive care units, 12,629 stayed for > 3 days. In neonatal units, 15,375 neonates < 32 weeks of age met the inclusion criteria. Finally, the two consensus meetings demonstrated 'buy-in' from the wider UK neonatal communities and paediatric intensive care units, and enabled us to discuss and vote on the outcomes that did not achieve consensus in the e-Delphi study.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Two separate UK trials (one in neonatal units and one in paediatric intensive care units) are feasible to conduct, but they cannot be combined as a result of differences in outcome measures and treatment protocols, reflecting the distinctness of the two specialties.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42110505.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

Nurses looking after babies and children on intensive care units in the UK usually pass a tube and aspirate whatever food or fluid is in the baby’s stomach before they give a feed. The idea is to ensure that the stomach is not overdistended with food and prevent the baby vomiting or, worse, aspirating food into the lungs. However, there is little justification for this practice. It is rarely done in many other countries. It may not be pleasant for the child and perhaps is unnecessary. Some experts have suggested that the policy should be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. This would mean allocating a large number of children at random to either have the stomach aspirated before feeds, or not. Such a trial would be a major undertaking and we are unsure if parents or staff would be willing to allow children to participate. The aim of this study was to see if it is possible to conduct such a large trial in the UK. Two surveys (of 119 units) showed us that regularly measuring the stomach contents when starting and increasing feeds is common practice for both newborn and older children in UK intensive care units. However, in some countries, such as France, this practice is rarely done. We asked 31 parents and 51 health-care professionals about a future study. Overall, parents were supportive of a trial if it was explained to them well by a knowledgeable and caring professional, and if they were approached at the right time. Some concerns were expressed about not picking up complications early if gastric residual volume was not measured. Health-care professionals were also mainly positive about a future trial, but mentioned similar concerns about not picking up complications early and the difficulty of changing a long-standing routine practice. Parents suggested study outcomes that were important to them. These, along with other outcomes, were voted on in a further survey of 106 professionals and at face-to-face meetings involving 41 participants. Overall, our findings suggest that a trial is feasible to perform and acceptable to parents. However, because of differences in both treatments and important outcomes between children’s intensive care units and newborn baby intensive care units, two trials would be needed, one in each type of intensive care unit. These two trials will test whether or not the benefits of not measuring gastric residual volume (e.g. improved calorie intake) outweigh the potential harms (e.g. delayed diagnosis of complications).

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:377–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. [DOI]
  3. Department of Health and Social Care. Toolkit for High-Quality Neonatal Services. 2009. URL: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123200735/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/@sta/@perf/documents/digitalasset/dh_108435.pdf (accessed 1 October 2019).
  4. Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership. National Neonatal Audit Programme – 2017 Annual Report on 2016 Data. 2017. URL: www.hqip.org.uk/resource/national-neonatal-audit-programme-2017-annual-report-on-2016-data/ (accessed 1 October 2019).
  5. Dorling J, Abbott J, Berrington J, Bosiak B, Bowler U, Boyle E, et al. Controlled trial of two incremental milk-feeding rates in preterm infants. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1434–43. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1816654 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816654. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Tume LN, Arch B, Woolfall K, Latten L, Deja E, Roper L, et al. Gastric residual volume measurement in UK paediatric intensive care units: a survey of practice. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2019;20:707–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000001944 doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000001944. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  7. O’Hara CB, Canter RR, Mouncey PR, Carter A, Jones N, Nadel S, et al. A qualitative feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of fluid bolus therapy in septic shock. Arch Dis Child 2018;103:28–32. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2016-312515 doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-312515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  8. Woolfall K, Frith L, Gamble C, Gilbert R, Mok Q, Young B, CONNECT advisory group. How parents and practitioners experience research without prior consent (deferred consent) for emergency research involving children with life threatening conditions: a mixed method study. BMJ Open 2015;5:e008522. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008522 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  9. Woolfall K, Frith L, Gamble C, Young B. How experience makes a difference: practitioners’ views on the use of deferred consent in paediatric and neonatal emergency care trials. BMC Med Ethics 2013;14:45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-45 doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-14-45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  10. Peters MJ, Khan I, Woolfall K, Deja E, Mouncey PR, Wulff J, et al. Different temperature thresholds for antipyretic intervention in critically ill children with fever due to infection: the FEVER feasibility RCT. Health Technol Assess 2019;23(5). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta23050 doi: 10.3310/hta23050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  11. Molyneux S, Njue M, Boga M, Akello L, Olupot-Olupot P, Engoru C, et al. ‘The words will pass with the blowing wind’: staff and parent views of the deferred consent process, with prior assent, used in an emergency fluids trial in two African hospitals. PLOS ONE 2013;8:e54894. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054894 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054894. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  12. Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant 2018;52:1893–907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8 doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. Baker SE, Edwards R. How Many Qualitative Interviews is Enough? Southampton: National Centre for Research Methods, University of Southampton; 2012.
  14. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000;320:50–2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50 doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. Great Britain. Data Protection Act 1998. London: The Stationery Office; 1988.
  16. Coffey AJ, Atkinson PA. Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd; 1996.
  17. Silverman D. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text, and Interaction. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2006.
  18. Boyatzis R. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 1998.
  19. Braun V, Clarke V. What can ‘thematic analysis’ offer health and wellbeing researchers? Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being 2014;9(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.26152 doi: 10.3402/qhw.v9.26152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  20. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005;15:1277–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Hutton JL. Are distinctive ethical principles required for cluster randomized controlled trials? Stat Med 2001;20:473–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258(20010215)20:3<473::AID-SIM805>3.0.CO;2-D doi: 10.1002/1097-0258(20010215)20:3&#x0003c;473::AID-SIM805&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-D. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. Christie J, O’Halloran P, Stevenson M. Planning a cluster randomized controlled trial: methodological issues. Nurs Res 2009;58:128–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181900cb5 doi: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181900cb5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. Medical Research Council. Cluster Randomised Trials: Methodological and Ethical Considerations. London: Medical Research Council; 2002.
  24. Taljaard M, Weijer C, Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Ottawa Ethics of Cluster Randomised Trials Consensus Group. The Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomised trials: precis for researchers and research ethics committees. BMJ 2013;346:f2838. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2838 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2838. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Inwald D, Canter RR, Woolfall K, O’Hara CB, Mouncey PR, Zenasni Z, et al. Restricted fluid bolus versus current practice in children with septic shock: the FiSh feasibility study and pilot RCT. Health Technol Assess 2018;22(51). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta22510 doi: 10.3310/hta22510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Woolfall K, Roper L, Humphreys A, Lyttle MD, Messahel S, Lee E, et al. Enhancing practitioners’ confidence in recruitment and consent in the EcLiPSE trial: a mixed-method evaluation of site training – a Paediatric Emergency Research in the United Kingdom and Ireland (PERUKI) study. Trials 2019;20:181. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3273-z doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3273-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  27. Riskin A, Cohen K, Kugelman A, Toropine A, Said W, Bader D. The impact of routine evaluation of gastric residual volumes on the time to achieve full enteral feeding in preterm infants. J Pediatr 2017;189:128–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.05.054 doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.05.054. [DOI] [PubMed]
  28. Torrazza RM, Parker LA, Li Y, Talaga E, Shuster J, Neu J. The value of routine evaluation of gastric residuals in very low birth weight infants. J Perinatol 2015;35:57–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2014.147 doi: 10.1038/jp.2014.147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  29. Reigner J, Mercier E, Le Gouge A Boulain T, Desachy A, Bellec F, et al. Effect of not monitoring residual gastric volume on risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults receiving mechanical ventilation and early enteral feeding. JAMA 2013;309:249–56. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.196377 doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.196377. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Poulard F, Dimet J, Martin-Lefevre L, Bontemps F, Fiancette M, Clementi E, et al. Impact of not measuring residual gastric volume in mechanically ventilated patients receiving early enteral feeding: a prospective before–after study. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2009;34:125–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148607109344745 doi: 10.1177/0148607109344745. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Tume LN, Bickerdike A, Latten L, Davies S, Lefèvre MH, Nicolas GW, Valla FV. Routine gastric residual volume measurement and energy target achievement in the PICU: a comparison study. Eur J Pediatr 2017;176:1637–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-017-3015-8 doi: 10.1007/s00431-017-3015-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  32. Ozen, N, Nuran T, Yamanel L, Altintas N, Kilciler G, Ozen V. Evaluation of the effect on patient parameters of not monitoring gastric residual volume in intensive care patients on a mechanical ventilator receiving enteral feeding: a randomized clinical trial. J Crit Care 2016;33:137–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.01.028 doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.01.028. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:395–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  34. Great Britain. National Health Service Act 2006. London: The Stationery Office; 2006.
  35. Great Britain. Health and Social Care Act 2001. London: The Stationery Office; 2001.
  36. Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership. The Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network Annual Report. 2018. URL: www.picanet.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2018/11/PICANet-2018-annual-report-summary-v1.1.pdf (accessed 1 December 2018).
  37. NHS Data Model and Dictionary. National Neonatal Data Set – Episodic and Daily Care. URL: www.datadictionary.nhs.uk/data_dictionary/messages/clinical_data_sets/data_sets/national_neonatal_data_set/national_neonatal_data_set_-_episodic_and_daily_care_fr.asp?shownav=0 (accessed 1 October 2019).
  38. Costeloe K, Bowler U, Brocklehurst P, Hardy P, Heal P, Juszczak E, et al. A randomised controlled trial of the probiotic Bifidobacterium breve BBG-001 in preterm babies to prevent sepsis, necrotising enterocolitis and death: the Probiotics in Preterm infantS (PiPS) trial. Health Technol Assess 2016;20(66). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20660 doi: 10.3310/hta20660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  39. Battersby C, Santhalingam T, Costeloe K, Modi N. Incidence of neonatal necrotising enterocolitis in high-income countries: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2018;103:F182–F189. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2017-313880 doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2017-313880. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Manktelow B, Draper ES, Field C, Field D. Estimates of length of neonatal stay for very premature babies in the UK. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2010;95:F288–92. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2009.168633 doi: 10.1136/adc.2009.168633. [DOI] [PubMed]
  41. Richardson M, Hines S, Dixon G, Highe L, Brierley J. Establishing nurse-led ventilator-associated pneumonia surveillance in paediatric intensive care. J Hosp Infect 2010;75:220–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2009.12.015 doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2009.12.015. [DOI] [PubMed]
  42. Ismail N, Darbyshire A, Thorburn K. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP): a UK PICU experience. Arch Dis Child 2012;97(1): https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2012-301885.361 doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2012-301885.361. [DOI]
  43. Narayanan A, Dixon G, Chalkley S, Ray S, Brierley J. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in children: comparing the plethora of surveillance definitions. J Hosp Infect 2016;94:163–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2016.05.006 doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2016.05.006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  44. Venkatachalam V, Hendley JO, Willson DF. The diagnostic dilemma of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill children. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2011;12:286–96. https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0b013e3181fe2ffb doi: 10.1097/PCC.0b013e3181fe2ffb. [DOI] [PubMed]
  45. Kerklaan D, Fivez T, Mehta NM, Mesotten D, van Rosmalen J, Hulst JM, et al. Worldwide survey of nutritional practices in PICUs. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2016;17:10–18. https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000000542 doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000542. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Mehta NM, Bechard LJ, Cahill N, Wang M, Day A, Duggan CP, Heyland DK. Nutritional practices and their relationship to clinical outcomes in critically ill children – an international multicenter cohort study*. Crit Care Med 2012;40:2204–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31824e18a8 doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31824e18a8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  47. Tume L, Latten L, Darbyshire A. An evaluation of enteral feeding practices in critically ill children. Nurs Crit Care 2010;15:291–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-5153.2010.00420.x doi: 10.1111/j.1478-5153.2010.00420.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  48. Tume LN, Latten L, Kenworthy L. Paediatric intensive care nurses’ decision-making around gastric residual volume measurement. Nurs Crit Care 2017;22:293–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12304 doi: 10.1111/nicc.12304. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. Quenot JP, Plantefeve G, Baudel JL, Camilatto I, Bertholet E, Cailliod R, et al. Bedside adherence to clinical practice guidelines for enteral nutrition in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a prospective, multicentre, observational study. Crit Care 2010;14:R37 https://doi.org/10.1186/cc8915 doi: 10.1186/cc8915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  50. Mehta N, Skillman H, Irving S, Coss-Bu JA, Vermilyea S, Farrington EA, et al. Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the pediatric critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2017;41:706–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148607117711387 doi: 10.1177/0148607117711387. [DOI] [PubMed]
  51. Leaf A, Dorling J, Kempley S, McCormick K, Mannix P, Linsell L, et al. Early or delayed enteral feeding for preterm growth-restricted infants: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2012;129:e1260–8. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2379 doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-2379. [DOI] [PubMed]
  52. O’Keeffe AG, Ambler G, Barber JA. Sample size calculations based on a difference in medians for positively skewed outcomes in health care studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017;17:157. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0426-1 doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0426-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  53. Harron K, Mok Q, Dwan K, Ridyard CH, Moitt T, Millar M, et al. CATheter Infections in CHildren (CATCH): a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation comparing impregnated and standard central venous catheters in children. Health Technol Assess 2016;20(18). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20180 doi: 10.3310/hta20180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  54. Lyttle MD, Rainford NEA, Gamble C, Messahel S, Humphreys A, Hickey H, et al. Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus (EcLiPSE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial. Lancet 2019;393:2125–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30724-X doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30724-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  55. Furyk J, McBain-Rigg K, Watt K on behalf of PREDICT. Qualitative evaluation of a deferred consent process in paediatric emergency research: a PREDICT study. BMJ Open 2017;7:e018562. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018562 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  56. Health Research Authority. Consent and Participant Information Guidance. URL: www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/consent/docs/Consent%20and%20PIS%20Guidance.pdf (accessed 10 January 2019).
  57. Webbe J, Duffy J, Afonso E, Al-Muzaffar I, Brunton G, Greenough A, et al. Core Outcomes in Neonatology: Development of a Neonatal Core Outcome Set Using an International Delphi Consensus Process. Pediatric Academic Societies, Baltimore, MD, 24 April to 1 May 2019. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2019-317501 doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2019-317501. [DOI]

RESOURCES