-
1.
Effect of Enteral Protein Amount on Growth and Health Outcomes in Very-Low-Birth-Weight Preterm Infants: Phase II of the Pre-B Project and an Evidence Analysis Center Systematic Review.
Fenton, TR, Groh-Wargo, S, Gura, K, Martin, CR, Taylor, SN, Griffin, IJ, Rozga, M, Moloney, L
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 2021;(11):2287-2300.e12
Abstract
Adequate protein intake by very-low-birth-weight preterm infants (≤1,500 g at birth) is essential to optimize growth and development. The estimated needs for this population are the highest of all humans, however, the recommended intake has varied greatly over the past several years. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Cochrane Central databases to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of prescribed protein intake and identified outcomes. Articles were screened by 2 reviewers, risk of bias was assessed, data were synthesized quantitatively and narratively, and each outcome was separately graded for certainty of evidence. The literature search retrieved 25,384 articles and 2 trials were included in final analysis. No trials were identified that evaluated effect of protein amount on morbidities or mortality. Moderate certainty evidence found a significant difference in weight gain when protein intake of greater than 3.5 g/kg/day from preterm infant formula was compared with lower intakes. Low-certainty evidence found no evidence of effect of protein intake of 2.6 vs 3.1 vs 3.8 g/kg/day on length, head circumference, skinfold measurements, or mid-arm circumference. Low-certainty evidence found some improvement in development measures when higher protein intake of 3.8 vs 3.1 vs 2.6 g/kg/day were compared. Low-certainty evidence found no significant difference in bone mineral content when these protein intakes were compared. No studies were identified that compared protein intake greater than 4.0 g/kg/day. This systematic review found that protein intake between 3.5 and 4.0 g/kg/day promotes weight gain and improved development.
-
2.
Short versus long feeding interval for bolus feedings in very preterm infants.
Ibrahim, NR, Van Rostenberghe, H, Ho, JJ, Nasir, A
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2021;(8):CD012322
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is presently no certainty about the ideal feeding intervals for preterm infants. Shorter feeding intervals of, for example, two hours, have the theoretical advantage of allowing smaller volumes of milk. This may have the potential to reduce the incidence and severity of gastro-oesophageal reflux. Longer feeding intervals have the theoretical advantage of allowing more gastric emptying between two feeds. This potentially provides periods of rest (and thus less hyperaemia) for an immature digestive tract. OBJECTIVES To determine the safety of shorter feeding intervals (two hours or shorter) versus longer feeding intervals (three hours or more) and to compare the effects in terms of days taken to regain birth weight and to achieve full feeding. SEARCH METHODS We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to run comprehensive searches in CENTRAL (2020, Issue 6) and Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions, and CINAHL on 25 June 2020. We searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing short (e.g. one or two hours) versus long (e.g. three or four hours) feeding intervals in preterm infants of any birth weight, all or most of whom were less than 32 weeks' gestation. Infants could be of any postnatal age at trial entry, but eligible infants should not have received feeds before study entry, with the exception of minimal enteral feeding. We included studies of nasogastric or orogastric bolus feeding, breast milk or formula, in which the feeding interval is the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were days taken to achieve full enteral feeding and days to regain birth weight. Our other outcomes were duration of hospital stay, episodes of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and growth during hospital stay (weight, length and head circumference). MAIN RESULTS We included four RCTs, involving 417 infants in the review. One study involving 350 infants is awaiting classification. All studies compared two-hourly versus three-hourly feeding interval. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low, but all studies had high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of the intervention. Three studies were included in meta-analysis for the number of days taken to achieve full enteral feeding (351 participants). The mean days to achieve full feeds was between eight and 11 days. There was little or no difference in days taken to achieve full enteral feeding between two-hourly and three-hourly feeding, but this finding was of low certainty (mean difference (MD) ‒0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‒1.60 to 0.36). There was low-certainty evidence that the days taken to regain birth weight may be slightly longer in infants receiving two-hourly feeding than in those receiving three-hourly feeding (MD 1.15, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.20; 3 studies, 350 participants). We are uncertain whether shorter feeding intervals have any effect on any of our secondary outcomes including the duration of hospital stay (MD ‒3.36, 95% CI ‒9.18 to 2.46; 2 studies, 207 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and the risk of NEC (typical risk ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.11; 4 studies, 417 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported growth during hospital stay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The low-certainty evidence we found in this review suggests that there may be no clinically important differences between two- and three-hourly feeding intervals. There is insufficient information about potential feeding complications and in particular NEC. No studies have looked at the effect of other feeding intervals and there is no long-term data on neurodevelopment or growth.
-
3.
Protein Enrichment of Donor Breast Milk and Impact on Growth in Very Low Birth Weight Infants.
Fu, TT, Kaplan, HC, Fields, T, Folger, AT, Gordon, K, Poindexter, BB
Nutrients. 2021;(8)
Abstract
Protein content is often inadequate in donor breast milk (DBM), resulting in poor growth. The use of protein-enriched target-pooled DBM (DBM+) has not been examined. We compared three cohorts of very low birth weight (VLBW) infants, born ≤ 1500 g: DBM cohort receiving > 1-week target-pooled DBM (20 kcal/oz), MBM cohort receiving ≤ 1-week DBM, and DBM+ cohort receiving > 1-week DBM+. Infants followed a standardized feeding regimen with additional fortification per clinical discretion. Growth velocities and z-scores were calculated for the first 4 weeks (n = 69 for DBM, 71 for MBM, 70 for DBM+) and at 36 weeks post-menstrual age (n = 58, 64, 59, respectively). In total, 60.8% MBM infants received fortification >24 kcal/oz in the first 30 days vs. 78.3% DBM and 77.1% DBM+. Adjusting for SGA, length velocity was greater with DBM+ than DBM in week 1. Average weight velocity and z-score change were improved with MBM compared to DBM and DBM+, but length z-score decreased similarly across all groups. Incidences of NEC and feeding intolerance were unchanged between eras. Thus, baseline protein enrichment appears safe in stable VLBW infants. Weight gain is greatest with MBM. Linear growth comparable to MBM is achievable with DBM+, though the overall length trajectory remains suboptimal.
-
4.
Cortisol and Cortisone in Early Childhood in Very-Low-Birthweight Infants and Term-Born Infants.
de Jong, M, Cranendonk, A, Twisk, JWR, van Weissenbruch, MM
Hormone research in paediatrics. 2020;(7-8):453-459
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Besides programming of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, changes in the activity of 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 2 (11β-HSD2) could contribute to the later metabolic and cardiovascular consequences of preterm birth. OBJECTIVE We compared serum cortisol, cortisone, and cortisol/cortisone ratio in early childhood in very-low-birthweight (VLBW) infants and term appropriate for gestational age (AGA) born infants. METHODS We included 41 VLBW infants, participating in the randomized controlled Neonatal Insulin Replacement Therapy in Europe trial, and 64 term AGA-born infants. Cortisol and cortisone were measured in blood samples taken at 6 months and 2 years corrected age (VLBW children) and at 3 months and 1 and 2 years (term children). At 2 years of (corrected) age (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, and insulin were also measured. RESULTS During the first 2 years of life, cortisol/cortisone ratio is higher in VLBW children compared to term children. In the total group of children, cortisol/cortisone ratio is positively related to triglycerides at 2 years of (corrected) age. In VLBW children, over the first 2 years of life both cortisol and cortisone are higher in the early-insulin group compared to the standard care group. CONCLUSIONS In VLBW infants, lower 11β-HSD2 activity probably contributes to the long-term metabolic and cardiovascular risks. In VLBW infants, early insulin treatment could affect programming of the HPA axis, resulting in higher cortisol and cortisone levels during early childhood.
-
5.
Two-Hourly versus Three-Hourly Feeding in Very Low-Birth-Weight Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Razak, A
American journal of perinatology. 2020;(9):898-906
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the benefits and side effects of 3-hourly versus 2-hourly feeding intervals in very low-birth-weight (VLBW) infants. STUDY DESIGN Database search include PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from inception until March 3, 2019. The author extracted the data from included studies and used Cochrane-GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. RESULTS Seven studies-four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three observational studies-involving 952 infants were included in the review. The pooled analyses of RCTs showed no significant differences in the outcomes: time to reach full enteral feeding, necrotizing enterocolitis, feed intolerance, and hypoglycemia. Infants fed 3-hourly regain birth weight earlier than infants fed 2-hourly (3 RCTs; 350 participants; mean difference [95% confidence interval] -1.12 [-2.16 to -0.08]; I2 = 0%; p = 0.04). The evidence was downgraded to low quality due to risk of bias and imprecision for all outcomes. Two studies found a subgroup of infants, younger and smaller, reach full enteral feeds earlier when fed 2-hourly compared with 3-hourly. CONCLUSION Low-quality evidence suggests feeding 3-hourly is comparable to 2-hourly feeding in VLBW infants. However, extremely low-birth-weight infants reach full enteral feeds earlier when fed 2-hourly compared with 3-hourly. Further, sufficient powered trials are needed.
-
6.
Individualized versus standard diet fortification for growth and development in preterm infants receiving human milk.
Fabrizio, V, Trzaski, JM, Brownell, EA, Esposito, P, Lainwala, S, Lussier, MM, Hagadorn, JI
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(11):CD013465
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Human milk as compared to formula reduces morbidity in preterm infants but requires fortification to meet their nutritional needs and to reduce the risk of extrauterine growth failure. Standard fortification methods are not individualized to the infant and assume that breast milk is uniform in nutritional content. Strategies for individualizing fortification are available; however it is not known whether these are safe, or if they improve outcomes in preterm infants. OBJECTIVES To determine whether individualizing fortification of breast milk feeds in response to infant blood urea nitrogen (adjustable fortification) or to breast milk macronutrient content as measured with a milk analyzer (targeted fortification) reduces mortality and morbidity and promotes growth and development compared to standard, non-individualized fortification for preterm infants receiving human milk at < 37 weeks' gestation or at birth weight < 2500 grams. SEARCH METHODS We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 9), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), on September 20, 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We considered randomized, quasi-randomized, and cluster-randomized controlled trials of preterm infants fed exclusively breast milk that compared a standard non-individualized fortification strategy to individualized fortification using a targeted or adjustable strategy. We considered studies that examined any use of fortification in eligible infants for a minimum duration of two weeks, initiated at any time during enteral feeding, and providing any regimen of human milk feeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data were collected using the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors evaluated the quality of the studies and extracted data. We reported analyses of continuous data using mean differences (MDs), and dichotomous data using risk ratios (RRs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS Data were extracted from seven RCTs, resulting in eight publications (521 total participants were enrolled among these studies), with duration of study interventions ranging from two to seven weeks. As compared to standard non-individualized fortification, individualized (targeted or adjustable) fortification of enteral feeds probably increased weight gain during the intervention (typical mean difference [MD] 1.88 g/kg/d, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26 to 2.50; 6 studies, 345 participants), may have increased length gain during the intervention (typical MD 0.43 mm/d, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.53; 5 studies, 242 participants), and may have increased head circumference gain during the intervention (typical MD 0.14 mm/d, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.23; 5 studies, 242 participants). Compared to standard non-individualized fortification, targeted fortification probably increased weight gain during the intervention (typical MD 1.87 g/kg/d, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.58; 4 studies, 269 participants) and may have increased length gain during the intervention (typical MD 0.45 mm/d, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57; 3 studies, 166 participants). Adjustable fortification probably increased weight gain during the intervention (typical MD 2.86 g/kg/d, 95% CI 1.69 to 4.03; 3 studies, 96 participants), probably increased gain in length during the intervention (typical MD 0.54 mm/d, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.7; 3 studies, 96 participants), and increased gain in head circumference during the intervention (typical MD 0.36 mm/d, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.5; 3 studies, 96 participants). We are uncertain whether there are differences between individualized versus standard fortification strategies in the incidence of in-hospital mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, culture-proven late-onset bacterial sepsis, retinopathy of prematurity, osteopenia, length of hospital stay, or post-hospital discharge growth. No study reported severe neurodevelopmental disability as an outcome. One study that was published after our literature search was completed is awaiting classification. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found moderate- to low-certainty evidence suggesting that individualized (either targeted or adjustable) fortification of enteral feeds in very low birth weight infants increases growth velocity of weight, length, and head circumference during the intervention compared with standard non-individualized fortification. Evidence showing important in-hospital and post-discharge clinical outcomes was sparse and of very low certainty, precluding inferences regarding safety or clinical benefits beyond short-term growth.
-
7.
The Course Of IGF-1 Levels and Nutrient Intake in Extremely and Very Preterm Infants During Hospitalisation.
Yumani, DFJ, Calor, AK, van Weissenbruch, MM
Nutrients. 2020;(3)
Abstract
BACKGROUND Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) plays an important role in the complex association between nutrition, growth, and maturation in extremely and very preterm infants. Nevertheless, in this population, research on associations between IGF-1 and nutrition is limited. Therefore this study aimed to evaluate the possible associations between the course of IGF-1 levels and nutrient intake between preterm birth and 36 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA). METHODS 87 infants born between 24 and 32 weeks gestational age were followed up to 36 weeks PMA. Actual daily macronutrient intake was calculated, and growth was assessed weekly. IGF-1 was sampled from umbilical cord blood at birth and every other week thereafter. RESULTS There was an inverse relationship between the amount of parenteral nutrition in the second week of life and IGF-1. Total protein, fat, and carbohydrate intake, as well as total energy intake, primarily showed a positive association with IGF-1 levels, particularly between 30 and 33 weeks PMA. Gestational age, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), and weight were significant confounders in the association between nutrient intake and IGF-1 levels. CONCLUSION Parenteral nutrition was found to be a negative predictor of IGF-1 levels, and there could potentially be a time frame in which macronutrient intake is unable to impact IGF-1 levels. Future research should aim to narrow down this time frame and to gain more insight into factors enhancing or decreasing the response of IGF-1 to nutrition, e.g., age and inflammatory state, to align nutritional interventions accordingly.
-
8.
Early fortification of human milk versus late fortification to promote growth in preterm infants.
Thanigainathan, S, Abiramalatha, T
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(7):CD013392
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Uncertainty exists about the optimal point at which multi-component fortifier should be added to human milk for promoting growth in preterm infants. The most common practice is to start fortification when the infant's daily enteral feed volume reaches 100 mL/kg body weight. Another approach is to commence fortification earlier, in some cases as early as the first enteral feed. Early fortification of human milk could increase nutrient intake and growth rates but may increase the risk of feed intolerance and necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). OBJECTIVES To assess effects on growth and safety of early fortification of human milk versus late fortification in preterm infants To assess whether effects vary based upon gestational age (≤ 27 weeks; 28 to 31 weeks; ≥ 32 weeks), birth weight (< 1000 g; 1000 to 1499 g; ≥ 1500 g), small or appropriate for gestational age, or type of fortifier (bovine milk-based human milk fortifier (HMF); human milk-based HMF; formula powder) SEARCH METHODS We used the standard strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8); OVID MEDLINE (R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions (R) (1946 to 15 August 2019); MEDLINE via PubMed (1 August 2018 to 15 August 2019) for the previous year; and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literatue (CINAHL) (1981 to 15 August 2019). We searched clinical trials databases and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials that compared early versus late fortification of human milk in preterm infants. We defined early fortification as fortification started at < 100 mL/kg/d enteral feed volume or < 7 days postnatal age, and late fortification as fortification started at ≥ 100 mL/kg/d feeds or ≥ 7 days postnatal age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Both review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials, and we reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS We included two trials with a total of 237 infants. All participants were very low birth weight infants (birth weight < 1500 g). Early fortification was started at 20 mL/kg/d enteral feeds in one study and 40 mL/kg/d in the other study. Late fortification was started at 100 mL/kg/d feeds in both studies. One study used bovine milk-based fortifier, and the other used human milk-based fortifier. Meta-analysis showed that early fortification may have little or no effect on growth outcomes including time to regain birth weight (MD -0.06 days, 95% CI -1.32 to 1.20 days), linear growth (MD 0.10 cm/week, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.22 cm/week), or head growth (MD -0.01 cm/week, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06 cm/week) during the initial hospitalisation period. Early fortification may have little or no effect on the risk of NEC (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06). The certainty of evidence was low for these outcomes due to risk of bias (lack of blinding) and imprecision (small sample size). Early fortification may have little or no effect on incidence of surgical NEC, time to reach full enteral feeds, extrauterine growth restriction at discharge, proportion of infants with feed interruption episodes, duration of total parenteral nutrition (TPN), duration of central venous line usage, or incidence of invasive infection, all-cause mortality, and duration of hospital stay. The certainty of evidence was low for these outcomes due to risk of bias (lack of blinding) and imprecision (small sample size). We did not have data for other outcomes such as subsequent weight gain after birth weight is regained, parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease, postdischarge growth, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Available evidence is insufficient to support or refute early fortification of human milk in preterm infants. Further large trials would be needed to provide data of sufficient quality and precision to inform policy and practice.
-
9.
Optimizing individual nutrition in preterm very low birth weight infants: double-blinded randomized controlled trial.
Brion, LP, Rosenfeld, CR, Heyne, R, Brown, LS, Lair, CS, Petrosyan, E, Jacob, T, Caraig, M, Burchfield, PJ
Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association. 2020;(4):655-665
Abstract
OBJECTIVE In preterm neonates fed human milk, fortification may be adjusted by (1) optimization, based on growth rate and serum nutrient analyses, or (2) individualization, based on serial milk nutrient analyses. The primary aim was to determine whether individualized plus optimized nutrition (experimental) improves velocity of weight gain and linear growth from birth to endpoint (36 weeks postmenstrual age or discharge) when compared with optimized nutrition alone (controls). STUDY DESIGN Double-blinded parallel group randomized trial in 120 neonates <29 weeks gestational age (GA) or <35 weeks and small for GA (birth weight < 10th centile). RESULT Weight-gain velocity (13.1 ± 2.1, n = 57 controls, vs. 13.0 ± 2.6 g kg-1 day-1, n = 59 experimental, P = 0.87), linear growth (0.9 ± 0.2, n = 55, vs. 0.9 ± 0.2 cm week-1, n = 52, P = 0.90) and frequency of weight/length disproportion (2% vs. 2%, P = 0.98) were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS Individualized plus optimized nutrition does not improve weight gain, linear growth, or weight/length disproportion at endpoint versus optimized nutrition alone.
-
10.
Individualized Human Milk Fortification to Improve the Growth of Hospitalized Preterm Infants.
Quan, M, Wang, D, Gou, L, Sun, Z, Ma, J, Zhang, L, Wang, C, Schibler, K, Li, Z
Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2020;(4):680-688
Abstract
BACKGROUND Human milk (HM) is the first choice for preterm infants, but exclusive HM feeding is inadequate for the growth of very preterm infants. The hypothesis of this trial is that infants fed according to an individualized fortification regimen will have higher protein intake and improved weight gain velocity (WGV). METHODS A prospective, randomized, controlled study was conducted. Infants <34 weeks of gestational age were enrolled when enteral feeding volume reached 60 mL/kg/d and were randomly allocated to the individualized fortification (IF) group or the standard fortification group. The IF group was fed using a regimen that featured modifying HM fortifier and supplemental protein powder based on the protein concentration in HM, current body weight of infants, and blood urea nitrogen (fortification level was set as L-1, L0, L1, L2, L3; the amount of HM fortifier and protein powder were determined accordingly). RESULTS Between September 2012 and August 2016, 51 preterm infants completed the study. In the IF group, 62.5% (15/24) of preterm infants were fed with HM fortified to level 1, 29.2% (7/24) to level 2, and 12.5% (3/24) to level 3. The WGV of the third week in the IF group was greater than the standard group (20.8 ± 7.9 vs 14.9 ± 4.5 g/kg/d, P = 0.022). CONCLUSION About two-thirds of preterm infants needed to adjust the HM fortification to a higher level. The WGV of infants in the IF group was better than that of the standard group in the third week of this study.