-
1.
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.
-
2.
Sound reduction management in the neonatal intensive care unit for preterm or very low birth weight infants.
Almadhoob, A, Ohlsson, A
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(1):CD010333
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are subjected to stress, including sound of high intensity. The sound environment in the NICU is louder than most home or office environments and contains disturbing noises of short duration and at irregular intervals. There are competing auditory signals that frequently challenge preterm infants, staff and parents. The sound levels in NICUs often exceed the maximum acceptable level of 45 decibels (dB), recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Hearing impairment is diagnosed in 2% to 10% of preterm infants versus 0.1% of the general paediatric population. Noise may cause apnoea, hypoxaemia, alternation in oxygen saturation, and increased oxygen consumption secondary to elevated heart and respiratory rates and may, therefore, decrease the amount of calories available for growth. Elevated levels of speech are needed to overcome the noisy environment in the NICU, thereby increasing the negative impacts on staff, newborns, and their families. High noise levels are associated with an increased rate of errors and accidents, leading to decreased performance among staff. The aim of interventions included in this review is to reduce sound levels to 45 dB or less. This can be achieved by lowering the sound levels in an entire unit, treating the infant in a section of a NICU, in a 'private' room, or in incubators in which the sound levels are controlled, or reducing the sound levels that reaches the individual infant by using earmuffs or earplugs. By lowering the sound levels that reach the neonate, the resulting stress on the cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, and endocrine systems can be diminished, thereby promoting growth and reducing adverse neonatal outcomes. OBJECTIVES Primary objective To determine the effects of sound reduction on growth and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes of neonates. Secondary objectives 1. To evaluate the effects of sound reduction on short-term medical outcomes (bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, retinopathy of prematurity). 2. To evaluate the effects of sound reduction on sleep patterns at three months of age. 3. To evaluate the effects of sound reduction on staff performance. 4. To evaluate the effects of sound reduction in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) on parents' satisfaction with the care. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, abstracts from scientific meetings, clinical trials registries (clinicaltrials.gov; controlled-trials.com; and who.int/ictrp), Pediatric Academic Societies Annual meetings 2000 to 2014 (Abstracts2ViewTM), reference lists of identified trials, and reviews to November 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA Preterm infants (< 32 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) or < 1500 g birth weight) cared for in the resuscitation area, during transport, or once admitted to a NICU or a stepdown unit. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We performed data collection and analyses according to the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. MAIN RESULTS One small, high quality study assessing the effects of silicone earplugs versus no earplugs qualified for inclusion. The original inclusion criteria in our protocol stipulated an age of < 48 hours at the time of initiating sound reduction. We made a deviation from our protocol and included this study in which some infants would have been > 48 hours old. There was no significant difference in weight at 34 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA): mean difference (MD) 111 g (95% confidence interval (CI) -151 to 374 g) (n = 23). There was no significant difference in weight at 18 to 22 months corrected age between the groups: MD 0.31 kg, 95% CI -1.53 to 2.16 kg (n = 14). There was a significant difference in Mental Developmental Index (Bayley II) favouring the silicone earplugs group at 18 to 22 months corrected age: MD 14.00, 95% CI 3.13 to 24.87 (n = 12), but not for Psychomotor Development Index (Bayley II) at 18 to 22 months corrected age: MD -2.16, 95% CI -18.44 to 14.12 (n =12). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS To date, only 34 infants have been enrolled in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing the effectiveness of reducing sound levels that reach the infants' ears in the NICU. Based on the small sample size of this single trial, we cannot make any recommendations for clinical practice. Larger, well designed, conducted and reported trials are needed.
-
3.
Early full enteral feeding for preterm or low birth weight infants.
Walsh, V, Brown, JVE, Copperthwaite, BR, Oddie, SJ, McGuire, W
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(12):CD013542
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The introduction and advancement of enteral feeds for preterm or low birth weight infants is often delayed because of concerns that early full enteral feeding will not be well tolerated or may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis. Early full enteral feeding, however, might increase nutrient intake and growth rates; accelerate intestinal physiological, metabolic, and microbiomic postnatal transition; and reduce the risk of complications associated with intravascular devices for fluid administration. OBJECTIVES To determine how early full enteral feeding, compared with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds, affects growth and adverse events such as necrotising enterocolitis, in preterm or low birth weight infants. SEARCH METHODS We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Maternity & Infant Care Database Ovid, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials to October 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials that compared early full enteral feeding with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds in preterm or low birth weight infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors separately assessed trial eligibility, evaluated trial quality, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratios (RR), risk differences, and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS We included six trials. All were undertaken in the 2010s in neonatal care facilities in India. In total, 526 infants participated. Most were very preterm infants of birth weight between 1000 g and 1500 g. Trials were of good methodological quality, but a potential source of bias was that parents, clinicians, and investigators were not masked. The trials compared early full feeding (60 mL/kg to 80 mL/kg on day one after birth) with minimal enteral feeding (typically 20 mL/kg on day one) supplemented with intravenous fluids. Feed volumes were advanced daily as tolerated by 20 mL/kg to 30 mL/kg body weight to a target steady-state volume of 150 mL/kg to 180 mL/kg/day. All participating infants were fed preferentially with maternal expressed breast milk, with two trials supplementing insufficient volumes with donor breast milk and four supplementing with preterm formula. Few data were available to assess growth parameters. One trial (64 participants) reported a slower rate of weight gain (median difference -3.0 g/kg/day), and another (180 participants) reported a faster rate of weight gain in the early full enteral feeding group (MD 1.2 g/kg/day). We did not meta-analyse these data (very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported rate of head circumference growth. One trial reported that the mean z-score for weight at hospital discharge was higher in the early full enteral feeding group (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analyses showed no evidence of an effect on necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.54; 6 trials, 522 participants; I² = 51%; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Trials provided insufficient data to determine with any certainty how early full enteral feeding, compared with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds, affects growth in preterm or low birth weight infants. We are uncertain whether early full enteral feeding affects the risk of necrotising enterocolitis because of the risk of bias in the trials (due to lack of masking), inconsistency, and imprecision.
-
4.
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.
-
5.
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.
-
6.
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.
-
7.
Effect of oropharyngeal colostrum therapy in the prevention of necrotising enterocolitis among very low birthweight neonates: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Garg, BD, Balasubramanian, H, Kabra, NS, Bansal, A
Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association. 2018;(5):612-624
Abstract
BACKGROUND Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) is one of the most common life-threatening emergencies of the gastrointestinal tract in preterm neonates. The present study aimed to determine the efficacy of oropharyngeal colostrum with respect to reducing NEC in preterm neonates. METHODS A literature search was conducted for various randomised control trials by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE and ongoing clinical trials. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing oropharyngeal colostrum versus placebo in neonates (birthweight ≤ 1500 g or gestational age ≤ 32 weeks) were included in the review. The methodological quality of each trial was independently reviewed by the authors. For categorical and continuous variables, typical estimates for relative risk and typical estimates for weighted mean difference were calculated, respectively. A random effect model was assumed for meta-analysis. RESULTS In total, four eligible trials were included in the review. Oropharyngeal colostrum therapy was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of NEC stage ≥2 [typical relative risk (RR) = 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.27-1.49], mortality from any cause (typical RR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.15-4.80) and time to reach full feed [typical weighted mean difference (WMD) = -3.26; 95% CI = -8.87 to 2.35]. Duration of hospital stay was significantly less in the control group (typical WMD = 9.77; 95% CI = 3.96-15.59). CONCLUSIONS The current evidence is insufficient for recommending oropharyngeal colostrum as a routine clinical practice in the prevention of NEC. We emphasise the need for large randomised controlled trials with an adequate sample size and validated clinical outcomes in preterm neonates.
-
8.
Breast milk-acquired cytomegalovirus infection and disease in VLBW and premature infants.
Lanzieri, TM, Dollard, SC, Josephson, CD, Schmid, DS, Bialek, SR
Pediatrics. 2013;(6):e1937-45
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Very low birth weight (VLBW) and premature infants are at risk for developing postnatal cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease, including CMV-related sepsis-like syndrome (CMV-SLS) for which estimates [corrected] in the United States are lacking. METHODS We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the pooled proportions (and 95% confidence intervals) of VLBW and premature infants born to CMV-seropositive women with breast milk-acquired CMV infection and CMV-SLS. We combined these proportions with population-based rates of CMV seropositivity, breast milk feeding, VLBW, and prematurity to estimate annual rates of breast milk-acquired CMV infection and CMV-SLS in the United States. RESULTS In our meta-analysis, among 299 infants fed untreated breast milk, we estimated 19% (11%-32%) acquired CMV infection and 4% (2%-7%) developed CMV-SLS. Assuming these proportions, we estimated a rate of breast milk-acquired CMV infection among VLBW and premature infants in the United States of 6.5% (3.7%-10.9%) and 1.4% (0.7%-2.4%) of CMV-SLS, corresponding to 600 infants with CMV-SLS in 2008. Among 212 infants fed frozen breast milk, our meta-analysis proportions were 13% (7%-24%) for infection and 5% (2%-12%) for CMV-SLS, yielding slightly lower rates of breast milk-acquired CMV infection (4.4%; 2.4%-8.2%) but similar rates of CMV-SLS (1.7%; 0.7%-4.1%). CONCLUSIONS Breast milk-acquired CMV infection presenting with CMV-SLS is relatively rare. Prospective studies to better define the burden of disease are needed to refine guidelines for feeding breast milk from CMV-seropositive mothers to VLBW and premature infants.
-
9.
Low versus high haemoglobin concentration threshold for blood transfusion for preventing morbidity and mortality in very low birth weight infants.
Whyte, R, Kirpalani, H
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2011;(11):CD000512
Abstract
BACKGROUND Infants of very low birth weight often receive multiple transfusions of red blood cells, usually in response to predetermined haemoglobin or haematocrit thresholds. In the absence of better indices, haemoglobin levels are imperfect but necessary guides to the need for transfusion. Chronic anaemia in premature infants may, if severe, cause apnoea, poor neurodevelopmental outcomes or poor weight gain.On the other hand, red blood cell transfusion may result in transmission of infections, circulatory or iron overload, or dysfunctional oxygen carriage and delivery. OBJECTIVES To determine if erythrocyte transfusion administered to maintain low as compared to high haemoglobin thresholds reduces mortality or morbidity in very low birth weight infants enrolled within three days of birth. SEARCH METHODS Two review authors independently searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library) , MEDLINE,EMBASE, and conference proceedings through June 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of early versus late, or restrictive versus liberal erythrocyte transfusion regimes in low birth weight infants applied within three days of birth, with mortality or major morbidity as outcomes.