Implementing an exclusive human milk diet for preterm infants: real-world experience in diverse NICUs

Nutritional Strategies for Preterm Neonates and Preterm Neonates Undergoing Surgery: New Insights for Practice and Wrong Beliefs to Uproot

The nutrition of preterm infants remains contaminated by wrong beliefs that reflect inexactitudes and perpetuate old practices. In this narrative review, we report current evidence in preterm neonates and in preterm neonates undergoing surgery. Convictions that necrotizing enterocolitis is reduced by the delay in introducing enteral feeding, a slow advancement in enteral feeds, and the systematic control of residual gastric volumes, should be abandoned. On the contrary, these practices prolong the time to reach full enteral feeding. The length of parenteral nutrition should be as short as possible to reduce the infectious risk. Intrauterine growth restriction, hemodynamic and respiratory instability, and patent ductus arteriosus should be considered in advancing enteral feeds, but they must not translate into prolonged fasting, which can be equally dangerous. Clinicians should also keep in mind the risk of refeeding syndrome in case of high amino acid intake and inadequate electrolyte supply, closely monitoring them. Conversely, when preterm infants undergo surgery, nutritional strategies are still based on retrospective studies and opinions rather than on randomized controlled trials. Finally, this review also highlights how the use of adequately fortified human milk is strongly recommended, as it offers unique benefits for immune and gastrointestinal health and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Economic and Clinical Impact of Using Human Milk-Derived Fortifier in Very Low Birth Weight Infants

Background: Implementation of exclusive human milk (EHM) feeding defined as mother's own milk or donor human milk fortified with human milk-derived fortifiers can place an economic burden on institutions. Methods: Retrospective study of very low birth weight (VLBW) infants before and after the implementation of EHM feedings. Neonatal demographics and clinical outcomes including necrotizing enterocolitis, severe retinopathy of prematurity, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, late-onset sepsis, days on parenteral nutrition (PN), and length-of-stay were collected. The net cost to the institution was estimated using published data. Results: Sixty-four infants in the pre-EHM period and 57 infants in the post-EHM period were enrolled. Net product acquisition cost in 2020 and 2021 was $884,823. The EHM feeding guideline led to a reduction in the mean length of stay and mean days of PN use by 6.3 and 6.8 days per infant, respectively. This led to a cost saving of $1,813,444 ($31,815 per infant). No significant difference in incidence of short-term morbidities was observed. Combining the cost avoidance from clinical outcomes, the estimated financial impact over 2 years excluding insurance reimbursement was an estimated $ 913,840 ($16,032 per infant). Conclusion: Implementation of EHM-based feeding in VLBW infants is a cost-effective option for neonatal intensive care units that can result in reduced length of stay and days on PN without adversely impacting short-term morbidities.