ABM Clinical Protocol #16: Breastfeeding the Hypotonic Infant, Revision 2016

Comparison of Effects of Storage at Different Temperatures in a Refrigerator, Upright Freezer on Top of Refrigerator, and Deep Freezer on the Immunoglobulin A Concentration and Lysozyme Activity of Human Milk

This study aimed to investigate the effects of storing expressed human milk (HM) at different domestic storage temperatures on the secretory immunoglobulin A (SIgA) concentration and lysozyme activity. Forty mothers of full-term infants aged one to six months provided milk samples. The fresh samples were examined within 24 h of expression, and the other samples were stored in a refrigerator for four days or in two types of freezers for six months. The SIgA concentrations and lysozyme activity in the milk samples were studied using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits and fluorometric lysozyme activity assay kits, respectively. The pairwise comparisons of the SIgA concentration and lysozyme activity were carried out using one-way analysis of variance with Dunnett T3 or Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction, depending on the data distribution. The mean temperatures of the refrigerator, upright freezer on top of the refrigerator, and deep freezer (chest freezer) were 2.0, -16.7, and -22.3 °C, respectively. Our study results highlight that the SIgA concentration and lysozyme activity of HM stored in the refrigerator for four days and in freezers for six months were significantly lower than those of fresh HM (p < 0.001). During the first six months of storage in both types of freezers, the SIgA levels were stable, whereas the lysozyme activity significantly decreased (p < 0.001). HM stored in the deep freezer had a higher SIgA concentration and lysozyme activity than HM stored in the upright freezer on top of the refrigerator. Our data support the superiority of fresh human milk over stored HM. If HM is to be stored, then storage in a deep freezer is potentially a more effective method for the preservation of SIgA concentrations and lysozyme activity than storage by refrigeration for four days or in an upright freezer on top of a refrigerator for six months.

Can I breastfeed my baby with Down syndrome? A scoping review

AIM

To summarise existing evidence about barriers and enablers to breastfeeding babies with Down syndrome (DS) in peer-reviewed literature.

METHODS

Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Scopus and Ovid Emcare were searched. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to screen yielded articles and those meeting the criteria were included for data extraction. Two authors extracted data including outcomes, design, definition of DS, barriers and enablers to breastfeeding babies with DS.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Barriers and enablers were categorised into maternal, child and health professional factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified a significant literature gap related to breastfeeding babies with DS and more definitive research under current standards is needed. Mothers reported the need for high-quality health professional breastfeeding support and evidence-based effective breastfeeding techniques. A collaborated and concerted approach from both mothers and health professionals is important to optimise breastfeeding for babies with DS.

Altered sucking dynamics in a breastfed infant with Down syndrome: a case report

BACKGROUND

The health and developmental advantages of human milk and breastfeeding are particularly important for infants with Down syndrome. However, they typically have shorter breastfeeding duration due to sucking issues that are not well understood. This case report describes serial measures of milk transfer volumes, sucking dynamics and tongue movement in a breastfeeding infant with Down syndrome. Management of maternal milk production enabled feeding of only breast milk until maturation of breastfeeding skills and the achievement of full breastfeeding by 6 months.

CASE PRESENTATION

The mother of a term infant with Down syndrome and no associated health complications presented with concerns regarding adequacy of milk removal at the breast and low milk supply. We monitored sucking dynamics during breastfeeding by measuring intraoral vacuum strength, nutritive and non-nutritive suck rates and burst durations, and tongue movement using submental ultrasound. Breastfeeds were monitored at 4, 10, 14, 19 and 24 weeks, and maternal 24 h milk production was measured at 4, 10 and 24 weeks postpartum. We observed a weaker suck strength and shorter nutritive suck duration, and atypical tongue movement up to 19 weeks, with low milk transfer volumes. Regular breast expression was effective in increasing maternal milk production, providing expressed milk for all complementary feeds. Full breastfeeding was achieved by 6 months when reference sucking values were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This case report illustrates that infants with Down syndrome may have low intraoral vacuum and limited nutritive sucking that persists for several months, likely due to delayed oro-motor development. In the absence of effective sucking human milk feeding can continue when milk production is stimulated with frequent and adequate breast expression. It is possible for infants with Down syndrome and no associated health complications to eventually establish full breastfeeding. Mothers that wish to breastfeed their infant with Down syndrome require anticipatory guidance and continuing lactation and family support.

ABM Clinical Protocol #10: Breastfeeding the Late Preterm (34-36 6/7 Weeks of Gestation) and Early Term Infants (37-38 6/7 Weeks of Gestation), Second Revision 2016

A central goal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine is the development of clinical protocols for managing common medical problems that may impact breastfeeding success. These protocols serve only as guidelines for the care of breastfeeding mothers and infants and do not delineate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as standards of medical care. Variations in treatment may be appropriate according to the needs of an individual patient.