Objective: To determine clinical consensus and non-consensus in regard to evidence-based statements about feeding infants with complex CHD, with a focus on human milk. Areas of non-consensus may indicate discrepancies between research findings and practice, with consequent variation in feeding management. Materials and Methods: A modified Delphi survey validated key feeding topics (round 1), and determined consensus on evidence-based statements (rounds 2 and 3). Patients (n=25) were an interdisciplinary group of clinical experts from across the United States of America. Descriptive analysis used SPSS Statistics (Version 26.0). Thematic analysis of qualitative data provided context for quantitative data. Results: Round 1 generated 5 key topics (human milk, developing oral feeding skills, clinical feeding practice, growth failure, and parental concern about feeding) and 206 evidence-based statements. The final results included 110 (53.4%) statements of consensus and 96 (46.6%) statements of non-consensus. The 10 statements of greatest consensus strongly supported human milk as the preferred nutrition for infants with complex CHD. Areas of non-consensus included the adequacy of human milk to support growth, need for fortification, safety, and feasibility of direct breastfeeding, issues related to tube feeding, and prevention and treatment of growth failure. Conclusions: The results demonstrate clinical consensus about the importance of human milk, but reveal a need for best practices in managing a human milk diet for infants with complex CHD. Areas of non-consensus may lead to clinical practice variation. A sensitive approach to these topics is needed to support family caregivers in navigating feeding concerns.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||12|
|Journal||Cardiology in the young|
|State||Published - Dec 11 2020|
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
This project was supported by the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, grant UL1TR002494. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Additional support was provided by the Pediatric Device Innovation Consortium at the University of Minnesota.
© 2021 Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
- Congenital anomalies
- evidence-based practice