Growth, Feeding Tolerance and Metabolism in Extreme Preterm Infants under an Exclusive Human Milk Diet.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Eibensteiner F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6683272 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Growth, Feeding Tolerance and Metabolism in Extreme Preterm Infants under an Exclusive Human Milk Diet.
Eibensteiner Fabian F Auer-Hackenberg Lorenz L Jilma Bernd B Thanhaeuser Margarita M Wald Martin M Haiden Nadja N
Nutrients 20190626 7
<h4>Background</h4>For preterm infants, human milk (HM) has to be fortified to cover their enhanced nutritional requirements and establish adequate growth. Most HM fortifiers are based on bovine protein sources (BMF). An HM fortifier based on human protein sources (HMF) has become available in the last few years. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of an HMF versus BMF on growth in extremely low birth weight (ELBW, <1000 g) infants.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a retrospective, control ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the association between human milk exposure at 3 months corrected gestational age and recurrent wheeze in preterm Black infants.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of data from the D-Wheeze trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01601847). Associations between human milk feeding at 3 months corrected age and wheezing outcomes were examined by generalized linear models.ResultsExclusively human milk fed infants (n = 13) had significantly fewer wheezing episodes than formula fed infants (n = 230) (IRR (95% CI) = 0.25 (0.07, 0.89), p = 0.03). There were no hospitalizations in infants receiving exclusive human milk. Receiving any human milk was associated with decreased odds of hospitalization by 12 months corrected age (OR (95% CI) = 0.12 (0.02, 0.79), p = 0.03).ConclusionsExclusive human milk feeding at three months corrected gestational age is associated with decreased number of wheezing episodes in the first year of life in preterm Black infants.
| S-EPMC9617763 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In spite of high rates of initiating breast milk feeding (BMF) among preterm infants, a significant rate of discontinuation occurs shortly after discharge. To investigate the effect of mode (direct feeding at the breast vs. expressing) and exclusivity (breast milk combined with formula vs. breast milk only) as well as maternal perceptions on the duration of BMF among preterm infants. The study included mothers whose infants were born before 32 weeks gestation, between January 2012 and August 2015 at Sheba Medical Center (SMC). Perinatal data were collected retrospectively from infants' computerized charts. Mothers were approached >12 months postpartum and were asked to complete a questionnaire. Those who agreed to participate were asked (during their visit to the follow-up clinic or by phone or mail) to complete a questionnaire regarding mode and duration of BMF as well as reasons for its discontinuation. Mothers were also asked about their pre-partum intentions to feed directly at the breast. Out of 162 eligible mothers, 131 (80.8%) initiated BMF during their intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization. Of these, 66 (50.3%) discontinued BMF earlier than six months postpartum. BMF ≥ 6 months was significantly associated with direct feeding at the breast, duration of exclusive BMF, and singleton birth. Regression analysis revealed that direct feeding at the breast (any or only) and duration of BMF exclusivity were the only significant variables associated with BMF duration (Odds ratio (OR) 5.5 and 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.00-15.37; OR 1.5 and 95% CI 1.25-1.88, respectively). Milk supply (inadequate or nonexistent) was the most commonly reported cause for BMF discontinuation <6 months. Direct feeding at the breast was significantly associated with BMF duration and was more common among singletons. Direct feeding at the breast and duration of exclusive BMF are associated with duration of BMF among infants born <32 weeks of gestational age (GA). These findings suggest that targeting these two factors may play a key role in prolonging BMF duration among preterm infants.
| S-EPMC5707674 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:The composition of human milk varies widely and impacts the ability to meet nutrient requirements for preterm infants. The purpose of this study is to use a large dataset of milk composition from donors to a milk bank to: (1) describe the macronutrient variability in human milk and how it contributes to the ability to meet the protein and calorie targets for the preterm infant using fortification with commercially available multi-nutrient fortifiers; (2) assess how temporal versus subject effects explain macronutrient variability; (3) determine how macronutrient variability contributes to the nutrient distribution in pooled donor milk. METHODS:This is a retrospective, observational study that analyzes the macronutrient data of 1,119 human milk samples from 443 individual donors to a milk bank. We test fortification strategies with potential basic, intermediate, and high protein and calorie commercial fortifiers. Additionally, we simulate the random pooling of multiple donors to model the impact of macronutrient variability on pooled donor milk. RESULTS:Fat was the most variable nutrient and accounted for 80% of the difference in calories. A subject-effect predicted more of the variability after 4 weeks postpartum in all macronutrients (R2 > = 0.50) than a time-effect (R2 < = 0.28). When pooling multiple donors, variability was reduced by increasing the number of donors randomly selected for a pool or targeted pooling based on macronutrient analysis of donor pools. Over 75% of mature milk samples fortified with a basic protein fortifier did not meet daily protein targets of 3.5 g/kg without exceeding volumes of 160 ml/kg/day. CONCLUSION:There is a strong individual signature to human milk that impacts the pooling of donor milk, and the ability to meet protein and energy requirements for the preterm infant with basic and intermediate protein and calorie fortifiers.
| S-EPMC6347243 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of the present randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the use of donkey milk-derived fortifier (DF) with commercial bovine milk-derived fortifier (BF) in very preterm or very-low-birth-weight newborns, in terms of feeding tolerance.MethodsThis trial included 156 newborns born at <32 weeks of gestational age and/or with a birth weight ?1500?g. Newborns were randomized 1:1 to receive enteral feeding with either a BF-arm, or a new, DF-arm for 21 days. The fortification protocol was the same for both study arms, and the 2 diets were designed to be isoproteic and isocaloric. Feeding tolerance was assessed by a standardized protocol.ResultsThe risk of feeding intolerance tended to be lower in DF-arm than in BF-arm, with a relative risk reduction of 0.63 (95% confidence interval: -0.29, +0.90). The mean number of episodes per newborn of feeding intolerance and feeding interruptions (any duration) were consistently lower in the DF-arm than in the BF-arm. Episodes of bilious gastric residuals and vomiting were significantly lower in the DF-arm. Time needed to reach full enteral feeding (150?mL?·?kg?·?day) and daily weight increase between the first day of exclusive enteral feeding (ie, without administering intravenous fluids) and discharge were similar in the BF- and DF-arms.ConclusionsThese results suggest that DF improve feeding tolerance when compared with standard bovine-derived fortifiers, with a similar auxological outcome.
| S-EPMC6314716 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Protein intakes of preterm infants are frequently below recommendations, but few studies report accurate intakes due to the difficulty of analysing human milk clinically. This observational analysis from a randomised trial of infants born.
| S-EPMC6025124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhen sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, alternative forms of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula. Donor breast milk may retain some of the non-nutritive benefits of maternal breast milk for preterm or LBW infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may ensure more consistent delivery of greater amounts of nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for preterm or LBW infants.ObjectivesTo determine the effect of feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk on growth and development in preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants.Search methodsWe used the Cochrane Neonatal search strategy, including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (until 8 June 2017), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews.Selection criteriaRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing feeding with formula versus donor breast milk in preterm or LBW infants.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) methods.Main resultsEleven trials, in which 1809 infants participated in total, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared standard term formula versus donor breast milk and seven compared nutrient-enriched preterm formula versus donor breast milk. Only the four most recent trials used nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. The trials contain various weaknesses in methodological quality, specifically concerns about allocation concealment in four trials and lack of blinding in most of the trials.Formula-fed infants had higher in-hospital rates of weight gain (mean difference (MD) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 3.08 g/kg/day), linear growth (MD 1.21, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.65 mm/week) and head growth (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23 mm/week). We did not find evidence of an effect on long-term growth or neurodevelopment. Formula feeding increased the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.87, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.85; risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.06).The GRADE quality of evidence was moderate for rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth (downgraded for high levels of heterogeneity) and was moderate for neurodevelopmental disability, all-cause mortality, and necrotising enterocolitis (downgraded for imprecision).Authors' conclusionsIn preterm and LBW infants, feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk, either as a supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole diet, results in higher rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth and a higher risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. The trial data do not show an effect on all-cause mortality, or on long-term growth or neurodevelopment.
| S-EPMC6513381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhen sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, alternative forms of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula. Donor breast milk may retain some of the non-nutritive benefits of maternal breast milk for preterm or LBW infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may ensure more consistent delivery of greater amounts of nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for preterm or LBW infants.ObjectivesTo determine the effect of feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk on growth and development in preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants.Search methodsWe used the Cochrane Neonatal search strategy, including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (3 May 2019), as well as conference proceedings, previous reviews, and clinical trials.Selection criteriaRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing feeding with formula versus donor breast milk in preterm or LBW infants.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses. We assessed the certainty of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using GRADE methods.Main resultsTwelve trials with a total of 1879 infants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared standard term formula versus donor breast milk and eight compared nutrient-enriched preterm formula versus donor breast milk. Only the five most recent trials used nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. The trials contain various weaknesses in methodological quality, specifically concerns about allocation concealment in four trials and lack of blinding in most of the trials. Most of the included trials were funded by companies that made the study formula.Formula-fed infants had higher in-hospital rates of weight gain (mean difference (MD) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 3.08 g/kg/day), linear growth (MD 1.21, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.65 mm/week) and head growth (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23 mm/week). These meta-analyses contained high levels of heterogeneity. We did not find evidence of an effect on long-term growth or neurodevelopment. Formula feeding increased the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.87, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.85; risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 33, 95% CI 20 to 100; 9 studies, 1675 infants).The GRADE certainty of evidence was moderate for rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth (downgraded for high levels of heterogeneity) and was moderate for neurodevelopmental disability, all-cause mortality, and necrotising enterocolitis (downgraded for imprecision).Authors' conclusionsIn preterm and LBW infants, moderate-certainty evidence indicates that feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk, either as a supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole diet, results in higher rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth and a higher risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. The trial data do not show an effect on all-cause mortality, or on long-term growth or neurodevelopment.
| S-EPMC6640412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Long-term outcomes of preterm infants fed an exclusive human milk-based (EHM) diet using a donor human milk-based fortifier are not well defined. Materials and Methods: Infants ≤1,250 g birth weight (BW) were studied prospectively at two outpatient visits: 12-15 and 18-22 months corrected age (CA). Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development III (BSID-III) were performed at 18-22 months CA. Results: In this pilot study, 51 preterm infants (gestational age 27.8 ± 2.6 weeks and BW 893 ± 204 g) were evaluated. While anthropometric z-scores were significantly lower at discharge compared with birth, z-scores returned to birth levels by 12-15 months CA (length and head circumference [HC]) and 18-22 months CA (weight). Body composition at 2 years of age was similar to term-matched controls. Inpatient growth was significantly correlated with bone density, lean mass (LM), and fat-free mass at 18-22 months CA. Increased mother's own milk (MOM) was significantly correlated with decreased fat mass indices. BSID-III showed that 0% of cognitive composite scores were <70. Conclusions: In addition to returning to BW, length, and HC z-scores by 2 years of age, body composition analysis revealed that increase in body size was appropriate as reflected by LM and bone density similar to matched term controls without an increase in fat mass. No child had severe cognitive developmental delay using a cutoff score of 70. Inpatient growth and increased receipt of MOM correlated with favorable growth and body composition outcomes. Positive outcomes as shown in this study to confirm postdischarge safety of an EHM diet during hospitalization.
| S-EPMC7360515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study was a comparison of growth and tolerance in premature infants fed either standard powdered human milk fortifier (HMF) or a newly formulated concentrated liquid that contained extensively hydrolyzed protein.This was an unblinded randomized controlled multicenter noninferiority study on preterm infants receiving human milk (HM) supplemented with 2 randomly assigned HMFs, either concentrated liquid HMF containing extensively hydrolyzed protein (LE-HMF) or a powdered intact protein HMF (PI-HMF) as the control. The study population consisted of preterm infants ?33 weeks who were enterally fed HM. Infants were studied from the first day of HM fortification until day 29 or hospital discharge, whichever came first.A total of 147 preterm infants were enrolled. Noninferiority was observed in weight gain reported in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was 18.2 and 17.5 g · kg(-1) · day(-1) for the LE-HMF and PI-HMF groups, respectively. In an a priori defined subgroup of strict protocol followers (n?=?75), the infants fed LE-HMF achieved greater weight over time than those fed PI-HMF (P?=?0.036). The LE-HMF group achieved greater linear growth over time compared to the PI-HMF (P?=?0.029). The protein intake from fortified HM was significantly higher in the LE-HMF group compared with the PI-HMF group (3.9 vs 3.3 g · kg(-1) · day(-1), P?<?0.0001). Both fortifiers were well tolerated with no significant differences in overall morbidity.Both fortifiers showed excellent weight gain (grams per kilograms per day), tolerance, and low incidence of morbidity outcomes with the infants who were strict protocol followers fed LE-HMF having improved growth during the study. These data point to the safety and suitability of this new concentrated liquid HMF (LE-HMF) in preterm infants. Growth with this fortifier closely matches the recent recommendations for a weight gain of >18 g · kg(-1) · day(-1).
| S-EPMC4645956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: An increasingly common practice is to feed preterm infants a base diet comprising only human milk (HM), usually fortified with a cow's milk (CM)-derived fortifier (CMDF). We evaluated the safety of CMDF in a diet of 100% mother's own milk (MOM) against a HM-derived fortifier (HMDF). To date, this has received little research attention. Study Design: We reanalyzed a 12-center randomized trial, originally comparing exclusive HM feeding, including MOM, donor milk (DM), and HMDF, versus a CM exposed group fed MOM, preterm formula (PTF), and CMDF1. However, for the current study, we performed a subgroup analysis (n = 114) selecting only infants receiving 100% MOM base diet plus fortification, and fed no DM or PTF. This allowed for an isolated comparison of fortifier type: CMDF versus HMDF to evaluate the primary outcomes: necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and a severe morbidity index of NEC surgery or death; and several secondary outcomes. Results: CMDF and HMDF groups had similar baseline characteristics. CMDF was associated with higher risk of NEC; relative risk (RR) 4.2 (p = 0.038), NEC surgery or death (RR 5.1, p = 0.014); and reduced head circumference gain (p = 0.04). Conclusions: In neonates fed, as currently recommended with a MOM-based diet, the safety of CMDF when compared to HMDF has been little researched. We conclude that available evidence points to an increase in adverse outcomes with CMDF, including NEC and severe morbidity comprising NEC surgery or death.
| S-EPMC7232708 | biostudies-literature