An Exclusively Human Milk-Based Diet Is Associated with a Lower Rate of Necrotizing Enterocolitis than a Diet of Human Milk and Bovine Milk-Based Products - 07/03/14
, Jae H. Kim, MD, PhD e, Aloka L. Patel, MD h, Rudolf Trawöger, MD o, Ursula Kiechl-Kohlendorfer, MD o, Gary M. Chan, MD i, Cynthia L. Blanco, MD j, Steven Abrams, MD k, C. Michael Cotten, MD, MHS l, Nirupama Laroia, MD d, Richard A. Ehrenkranz, MD m, Golde Dudell, MD f, Elizabeth A. Cristofalo, MD, MPH n, Paula Meier, PhD i, Martin L. Lee, PhD g, David J. Rechtman, MD g, Alan Lucas, MD pAbstract |
Objective |
To evaluate the health benefits of an exclusively human milk–based diet compared with a diet of both human milk and bovine milk–based products in extremely premature infants.
Study design |
Infants fed their own mothers’ milk were randomized to 1 of 3 study groups. Groups HM100 and HM40 received pasteurized donor human milk–based human milk fortifier when the enteral intake was 100 and 40 mL/kg/d, respectively, and both groups received pasteurized donor human milk if no mother’s milk was available. Group BOV received bovine milk–based human milk fortifier when the enteral intake was 100 mL/kg/d and preterm formula if no mother’s milk was available. Outcomes included duration of parenteral nutrition, morbidity, and growth.
Results |
The 3 groups (total n = 207 infants) had similar baseline demographic variables, duration of parenteral nutrition, rates of late-onset sepsis, and growth. The groups receiving an exclusively human milk diet had significantly lower rates of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC; P = .02) and NEC requiring surgical intervention (P = .007).
Conclusions |
For extremely premature infants, an exclusively human milk–based diet is associated with significantly lower rates of NEC and surgical NEC when compared with a mother’s milk–based diet that also includes bovine milk–based products.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Mots-clés : BOV, HMF, HM40, HM100, NEC, PN, SD
Plan
| S.S., R.J.S., J.H.K., A.L.P., R.T., U.K.-K., G.M.C., C.L.B., S.A., C.M.C., N.L., R.A.E., G.D., and E.A.C. received financial support from Prolacta Bioscience. The authors were responsible for the conduct of the study and collection of the data. M.L.L. and D.J.R. are employees of Prolacta Bioscience. A.L. is a paid Consultant of Prolacta Bioscience. P.M. received no support or payment. S.A., C.L.B., E.A.C., R.A.E., M.L.L., A.L., P.M., D.J.R., and R.J.S. were responsible for the design of the study. M.L.L. was responsible for the data analyses. R.J.S. wrote the draft of this manuscript. All of the authors were responsible for review and interpretation of the data and review of the manuscript. |
|
| Clinicaltrials.gov reg. # NCT00506584 |
Vol 156 - N° 4
P. 562 - avril 2010 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
