Heart Rate Variability as a Feeding Intervention Outcome Measure in the Preterm Infant.
Britt F Pados, Suzanne M Thoyre, George J Knafl and 1 others
PMID 28891821WHAT IT FOUND
A standard heart rate variability measure showed no difference between feeding methods.
A different heart rate pattern measure and fewer apneas were found with gentle co-regulated feeding, but the sample was small.
Key findings
01HF power showed no significant difference between feeding methods (p = .26).
02Usual care feeding had significantly higher SD12 than co-regulated feeding (p = .04).
03Co-regulated feeding had significantly fewer feeding-related apneas (p = .04) and significantly higher respiratory rate (p = .03).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The analysed sample was small: 14 infants and 34 feedings, reduced from the original 20 infants and 75 feedings because of data quality and short feeding episodes. Only active feeding periods of at least two minutes were analysed, so brief or interrupted feedings were excluded. The study examined heart rate variability only during feeding, not recovery after feeding. There is little prior data on SD12 in neonates, so the SD12 finding is hard to interpret. The authors describe this as an exploration with preliminary findings, not evidence that heart rate variability is ready for clinical use.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the significant SD12 difference as proof that heart rate variability should guide feeding decisions. High-frequency heart rate variability showed no significant difference, the sample was small, and the authors state clinical usefulness remains to be determined.