Feeding advancement and tolerance in preterm infants receiving an extensively hydrolyzed protein infant formula versus an intact protein premature infant formula: A triple-blind randomized clinical trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. e285
Author(s):  
M.E. Baldassarre ◽  
M. Capozza ◽  
A. Di Mauro ◽  
M. Fanelli ◽  
T. Cooper ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 120 ◽  
pp. 202-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hadiseh Ghomi ◽  
Fariba Yadegari ◽  
Farin Soleimani ◽  
Brenda Lessen Knoll ◽  
Mahdi Noroozi ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiong Le ◽  
Sheng-hua Zheng ◽  
Lan Zhang ◽  
Li-fen Wu ◽  
Feng-juan Zhou ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives This study was performed to evaluate the effect of oral stimulation with breast milk for preterm infants. Methods A total of 68 subjects form neonatal intensive care unit were randomly assigned into control group (n=20), premature infant oral motor intervention (PIOMI) group (n=25) and premature infant oral motor intervention with breast milk (BM-PIOMI) group (n=23). Results BM-PIOMI group had significant shorter initiation of oral feeding (IOF) time compared to PIOMI group (2.95 days, 95% CI [0.42–5.48]) or control group (9.79 days, 95% CI [7.07–12.51]). BM-PIOMI group had significant sooner transition time from IOF to full oral feeding (FOF) compared to control group (6.68 days, 95% CI [2.2–11.16]), but not to PIOMI group (2.09 days, 95% CI [−2.07 to 6.25]). Length of hospital stay (LOS) did not show statistical different between three groups (control 38.85 ± 14.40 vs. PIOMI 38.48 ± 11.76 vs. BM-PIOMI 38.04 ± 12.2). Growth mixture model identified improvement in non-nutritive sucking (NNS) score in BM-PIOMI group compared to control and PIOMI group (0.8293, p<0.0001, and 0.8296, p<0.0001, respectively). Conclusions Oral stimulation with breast milk can better promotes the oral feeding process of premature infants than the simple oral stimulation, by shorten IOF time and improve early NNS score, but does not shorten transition time from IOF to FOF and LOS. Trial registration The trial identification number is ChiCTR1800019134 (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/chictr2/en/)


2019 ◽  
Vol 109 (3) ◽  
pp. 518-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrin Mehler ◽  
Eva Hucklenbruch‐Rother ◽  
Patricia Trautmann‐Villalba ◽  
Ingrid Becker ◽  
Bernhard Roth ◽  
...  

Transfusion ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 658-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald G. Strauss ◽  
Donald M. Mock ◽  
Karen J. Johnson ◽  
Gretchen A. Cress ◽  
Leon F. Burmeister ◽  
...  

Nutrients ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 1670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Elisabetta Baldassarre ◽  
Antonio Di Mauro ◽  
Osvaldo Montagna ◽  
Margherita Fanelli ◽  
Manuela Capozza ◽  
...  

Objectives: To evaluate the relationship between gastric emptying (GE) time and days to achievement of full enteral feeding (≥140 mL/kg/day) in preterm infants randomly assigned to receive one of two marketed study formulas for the first 14 feeding days: intact protein premature formula (IPF) or extensively hydrolyzed protein (EHF) formula. Methods: In this triple-blind, controlled, prospective, clinical trial, we report GE time (time to half-emptying, t1/2) by real-time ultrasonography on Study Day 14, in preterm infants receiving IPF or EHF formula. The association between GE time and achievement of full enteral feeding was evaluated by Pearson correlation. Per-protocol populations for analysis included participants who (1) completed the study (overall) and (2) who received ≥ 75% study formula intake (mL/kg/day). Results: Median GE time at Day 14 was significantly faster for the EHF vs. IPF group overall and in participants who received ≥ 75% study formula intake (p ≤ 0.018). However, we demonstrated GE time had no correlation with the achievement of full enteral feeding (r = 0.08; p = 0.547). Conclusion: Feeding IP premature formula vs. EH formula was associated with shorter time to full enteral feeding. However, faster GE time did not predict feeding success and may not be a clinically relevant surrogate for assessing feeding tolerance.


2003 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yvonne Göbel ◽  
Berthold Koletzko ◽  
Hans-Josef Böhles ◽  
Ilse Engelsberger ◽  
Dominique Forget ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document