Anthropometric indicators of nutritional status and growth in very low birth-weight premature infants hospitalized in a neonatal intensive care unit

Background: Anthropometric indicators are difficult to interpret in very low birth weight (VLBW) premature infants, including both appropriate for gestational age (AGA) and small for gestational age (SGA) infants. Therefore, the purpose was to describe the anthropometric indicators of growth and nutritional status in VLBW premature infants AGA and SGA, hospitalized in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Study design: The descriptive and prospective study design included 114 preterm infants, adequate for gestational age/small for gestational age hospitalized in the intensive care unit. Head, thigh, mid upper arm circumference, skin-fold measurements and weight/age, length/ age, and weight/length indices were obtained. Correlations were made among the anthropometric indices, and a multivariate regression analysis with weight/age as dependent variable was performed. Results: Weight/age in AGA premature infants had high number of significant anthropometric correlations. The SGA premature infants had few and weak correlations. The regression analysis showed that anthropometric indices better explain changes in the weight/age index in adequate for gestational age premature infants. Conclusion: Weight/age in the VLBW/AGA premature infants could reflect growth, nutritional status and energy stored as fat, but in the VLBW/SGA premature infants, thigh circumference and mid arm circumference would be better indicators just of nutritional status.

Comparison of the traditional pharmaceutical validation method versus an assisted pharmaceutical validation in hospitalized patients

Objective: To analyze pharmaceutical interventions that have been carried out with the support of an automated system for validation of treatments vs. the traditional method without computer support. Method: The automated program, ALTOMEDICAMENTOS® version 0, has 925 052 data with information regarding approximately 20 000 medicines, analyzing doses, administration routes, number of days with such a treatment, dosing in renal and liver failure, interactions control, similar drugs, and enteral medicines. During eight days, in four different hospitals (high complexity with over 1 000 beds, 400-bed intermediate, geriatric and monographic), the same patients and treatments were analyzed using both systems. Results: 3,490 patients were analyzed, with 42 155 different treatments. 238 interventions were performed using the traditional system (interventions 0.56% / possible interventions) vs. 580 (1.38%) with the automated one. Very significant pharmaceutical interventions were 0.14% vs. 0.46%; significant was 0.38% vs. 0.90%; non-significant was 0.05% vs. 0.01%, respectively. If both systems are simultaneously used, interventions are performed in 1.85% vs. 0.56% with just the traditional system. Using only the traditional model, 30.5% of the possible interventions are detected, whereas without manual review and only the automated one, 84% of the possible interventions are detected. Conclusions: The automated system increases pharmaceutical interventions between 2.43 to 3.64 times. According to the results of this study the traditional validation system needs to be revised relying on automated systems. The automated program works correctly in different hospitals.