Does early compared to late fortification of human milk for preterm infants improve clinical outcomes?

Survey on human milk feeding and enteral feeding practices for very-low-birth-weight infants in NICUs in China Neonatal Network

BACKGROUND

The breastfeeding rate in China is lower than that in many other countries and the extent of adoption of the "Feeding Recommendations for Preterm Infants and Low Birth Weight Infants" guideline in NICUs remains unclear.

METHOD

A web-based survey about the current status of human milk feeding and enteral feeding practices at NICUs was sent to all China Neonatal Network's cooperation units on September 7, 2021, and the respondents were given a month to send their responses.

RESULTS

All sixty NICUs responded to the survey, the reply rate was 100%. All units encouraged breastfeeding and provided regular breastfeeding education. Thirty-six units (60.0%) had a dedicated breastfeeding/pumping room, 55 (91.7%) provided kangaroo care, 20 (33.3%) had family rooms, and 33 (55.0%) routinely provided family integrated care. Twenty hospitals (33.3%) had their own human milk banks, and only 13 (21.7%) used donor human milk. Eight units (13.3%) did not have written standard nutrition management guidelines for infants with body weight < 1500 g. Most units initiated minimal enteral nutrition with mother's milk for infants with birth weight ˂1500 g within 24 h after birth. Fifty NICUs (83.3%) increased the volume of enteral feeding at 10-20 ml/kg daily. Thirty-one NICUs (51.7%) assessed gastric residual content before every feeding session. Forty-one NICUs (68.3%) did not change the course of enteral nutrition management during drug treatment for patent ductus arteriosus, and 29 NICUs (48.3%) instated NPO for 1 or 2 feeds during blood transfusion.

CONCLUSION

There were significant differences in human milk feeding and enteral feeding strategies between the NICUs in CHNN, but also similarities. The data obtained would be useful in the establishment of national enteral feeding guidelines for preterm infants and quality improvement of cooperation at the national level.

Dilemmas in human milk fortification

Fortification of human milk is the standard of care for very low birth weight (VLBW) infants and is required to support adequate postnatal growth and development. Achieving adequate growth velocity and preventing growth faltering is critical for the developing neonatal brain and optimizing long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. Mother's milk is the gold standard nutrition to feed preterm infants, however, it does not provide the nutrients needed to support the growth of VLBW infants. After the decision is made to use mother's milk (if available) or alternatively, donor human milk, many dilemmas exist with regards to additional treatment decisions surrounding the type of fortification to use, when to fortify, and the duration of fortification. In this article, we will review the differences in mother's milk compared to donor milk, the different types of human milk fortifiers, the optimal timing of fortification, and discuss when to discontinue human milk fortification.

Impact of Early Fortification in Very Low Birth Weight Infants on the Incidence of Malnutrition During a Trophamine Shortage

OBJECTIVE

The devastation of pharmaceutical production facilities from Hurricane Maria caused a national shortage of parenteral amino acids in October 2017. Our institution decreased trophamine in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants and initiated human milk fortification at a lower feeding volume to increase enteral protein intake more quickly. The objective of this study was to assess how protein management during the shortage period affected the incidence of malnutrition.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of infants admitted to 2 neonatal intensive care units from June 1, 2017 to May 31, 2018. Infants between 23 and 32 weeks' gestation were included in this study. The primary outcome was the incidence of malnutrition at 14 days, defined as a z score decline of ≥0.8 SDs, in the pre-shortage period compared with the shortage period. Clinical data regarding adverse effects associated with early fortification and pharmacy costs were recorded.

RESULTS

There were 68 infants prior to and 65 during the shortage who met inclusion criteria. There was no difference in malnutrition between the pre-shortage and shortage groups; however, a significant increase in malnutrition was observed in infants who did not receive early fortification during the shortage. No difference in time to full enteral feeds or necrotizing enterocolitis was observed with early fortification.

CONCLUSIONS

Early fortification in VLBW infants receiving less trophamine during the shortage was not associated with an increase in malnutrition. Restricting trophamine in neonates during the shortage allowed for distribution to other critically ill patients.

Comparison of different protein concentrations of human milk fortifier for promoting growth and neurological development in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Human milk alone may provide inadequate amounts of protein to meet the growth requirements of preterm infants because of restrictions in the amount of fluid they can tolerate. It has become common practice to feed preterm infants with breast milk fortified with protein and other nutrients but there is debate about the optimal concentration of protein in commercially available fortifiers.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different protein concentrations in human milk fortifier, fed to preterm infants, on growth and neurodevelopment.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2019, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE and CINAHL on 15 August 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all published and unpublished randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing two different concentrations of protein in human milk fortifier. We included preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestational age). Participants may have been exclusively fed human milk or have been supplemented with formula. The concentration of protein was classified as low (< 1g protein/100 mL expressed breast milk (EBM)), moderate (≥ 1g to < 1.4g protein/100 mL EBM) or high (≥ 1.4g protein/100 mL EBM). We excluded trials that compared two protein concentrations that fell within the same category.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We undertook data collection and analyses using the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently evaluated trials. Primary outcomes included growth, neurodevelopmental outcome and mortality. Data were synthesised 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 the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine trials involving 861 infants. There is one trial awaiting classification, and nine ongoing trials. The trials were mostly conducted in infants born < 32 weeks' gestational age or < 1500 g birthweight, or both. All used a fortifier derived from bovine milk. Two trials fed infants exclusively with mother's own milk, three trials gave supplementary feeds with donor human milk and four trials supplemented with preterm infant formula. Overall, trials were small but generally at low or unclear risk of bias. High versus moderate protein concentration of human milk fortifier There was moderate certainty evidence that a high protein concentration likely increased in-hospital weight gain compared to moderate concentration of human milk fortifier (MD 0.66 g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.82; trials = 6, participants = 606). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of high versus moderate protein concentration on length gain (MD 0.01 cm/week, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03; trials = 5, participants = 547; very low certainty evidence) and head circumference gain (MD 0.00 cm/week, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; trials = 5, participants = 549; very low certainty evidence). Only one trial reported neonatal mortality, with no deaths in either group (participants = 45). Moderate versus low protein concentration of human milk fortifier A moderate versus low protein concentration fortifier may increase weight gain (MD 2.08 g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.77; trials = 2, participants = 176; very low certainty evidence) with little to no effect on head circumference gain (MD 0.13 cm/week, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.26; I² = 85%; trials = 3, participants = 217; very low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. There was low certainty evidence that a moderate protein concentration may increase length gain (MD 0.09 cm/week, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.14; trials = 3, participants = 217). Only one trial reported mortality and found no difference between groups (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.17; participants = 112). No trials reported long term growth or neurodevelopmental outcomes including cerebral palsy and developmental delay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Feeding preterm infants with a human milk fortifier containing high amounts of protein (≥ 1.4g/100 mL EBM) compared with a fortifier containing moderate protein concentration (≥ 1 g to < 1.4 g/100 mL EBM) results in small increases in weight gain during the neonatal admission. There may also be small increases in weight and length gain when infants are fed a fortifier containing moderate versus low protein concentration (< 1 g protein/100 mL EBM). The certainty of this evidence is very low to moderate; therefore, results may change when the findings of ongoing studies are available. There is insufficient evidence to assess the impact of protein concentration on adverse effects or long term outcomes such as neurodevelopment. Further trials are needed to determine whether modest increases in weight gain observed with higher protein concentration fortifiers are associated with benefits or harms to long term growth and neurodevelopment.

Early fortification of human milk versus late fortification to promote growth in preterm infants

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.

Early versus late fortification of breast milk in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effects of early fortification (EF) versus late fortification (LF) of breast milk (BM) on growth of preterm infants. Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) dealing with the effects of EF versus LF on growth parameters, incidence of adverse events, and duration of hospital stay in preterm infants were included. Data were pooled using the RevMan 5.3 software. Quality of evidence for predefined outcomes was analyzed by GRADE. Available evidence (3 RCTs, 309 preterm infants) showed no statistically significant difference between EF and LF of BM for any of the growth parameters-weight (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.09, 0.36); length (SMD 0.02; 95% CI - 0.20, 0.25); and head circumference (SMD - 0.10; 95% CI - 0.33, 0.12). Total parenteral nutrition days were similar. Duration of hospital stay was significantly higher with EF (MD 4.29; 95% CI 0.84, 7.75) with a trend of non-significant increase in feed intolerance and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).Conclusion: Very low quality evidence did not find any significant difference in growth parameters of preterm infants in association with EF or LF of BM. A significant increase in hospital stay and non-significant increase in feed intolerance and NEC were associated with EF.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019139235What is Known:• Fortification of breast milk with essential macro- and micronutrients is necessary for optimization of nutrition in preterm infants.• There is no consensus regarding the breast milk feeding volume at which fortification should be initiated.What is New:• Very low quality evidence showed no significant difference between early and late fortification of breast milk on growth parameters of preterm infants.• Early fortification was associated with non-significant increase in feed intolerance and necrotizing enterocolitis and a significant increase in hospital stay.