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

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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Thanigainathan S ，Abiramalatha T 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

High versus standard volume enteral feeds to promote growth in preterm or low birth weight infants.

Human milk is the best enteral nutrition for preterm infants. However, human milk, given at standard recommended volumes, is not adequate to meet the protein, energy, and other nutrient requirements of preterm or low birth weight infants. One strategy that may be used to address the potential nutrient deficits is to give a higher volume of enteral feeds. High volume feeds may improve nutrient accretion and growth, and in turn may improve neurodevelopmental outcomes. However, there are concerns that high volume feeds may cause feed intolerance, necrotising enterocolitis, or complications related to fluid overload such as patent ductus arteriosus and chronic lung disease. This is an update of a review published in 2017. To assess the effect on growth and safety of high versus standard volume enteral feeds in preterm or low birth weight infants. In infants who were fed fortified human milk or preterm formula, high and standard volume feeds were defined as > 180 mL/kg/day and ≤ 180 mL/kg/day, respectively. In infants who were fed unfortified human milk or term formula, high and standard volume feeds were defined as > 200 mL/kg/day and ≤ 200 mL/kg/day, respectively. We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020 Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to June 2020); Embase (1974 to June 2020); and CINAHL (inception to June 2020); Maternity & Infant Care Database (MIDIRS) (1971 to April 2020); as well as previous reviews, and trial registries. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared high versus standard volume enteral feeds for preterm or low birth weight infants. Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported risk ratio (RR) and risk difference 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. The primary outcomes were weight gain, linear and head growth during hospital stay, and extrauterine growth restriction at discharge. We included two new RCTs (283 infants) in this update. In total, we included three trials (347 infants) in this updated review. High versus standard volume feeds with fortified human milk or preterm formula Two trials (283 infants) met the inclusion criteria for this comparison. Both were of good methodological quality, except for lack of masking. Both trials were performed in infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation. Meta-analysis of data from both trials showed high volume feeds probably improves weight gain during hospital stay (MD 2.58 g/kg/day, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.76; participants = 271; moderate-certainty evidence). High volume feeds may have little or no effect on linear growth (MD 0.05 cm/week, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.13; participants = 271; low-certainty evidence), head growth (MD 0.02 cm/week, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.09; participants = 271; low-certainty evidence), and extrauterine growth restriction at discharge (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.02; participants = 271; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of high volume feeds with fortified human milk or preterm formula on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.51; participants = 283; very-low certainty evidence). High versus standard volume feeds with unfortified human milk or term formula One trial with 64 very low birth weight infants met the inclusion criteria for this comparison. This trial was unmasked but otherwise of good methodological quality. High volume feeds probably improves weight gain during hospital stay (MD 6.2 g/kg/day, 95% CI 2.71 to 9.69; participants = 61; moderate-certainty evidence). The trial did not provide data on linear and head growth, and extrauterine growth restriction at discharge. We are uncertain as to the effect of high volume feeds with unfortified human milk or term formula on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.78; participants = 61; very low-certainty evidence). High volume feeds (≥ 180 mL/kg/day of fortified human milk or preterm formula, or ≥ 200 mL/kg/day of unfortified human milk or term formula) probably improves weight gain during hospital stay. The available data is inadequate to draw conclusions on the effect of high volume feeds on other growth and clinical outcomes. A large RCT is needed to provide data of sufficient quality and precision to inform policy and practice.

Abiramalatha T ，Thomas N ，Thanigainathan S 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Individualized versus standard diet fortification for growth and development in preterm infants receiving human milk.

Human milk as compared to formula reduces morbidity in preterm infants but requires fortification to meet their nutritional needs and to reduce the risk of extrauterine growth failure. Standard fortification methods are not individualized to the infant and assume that breast milk is uniform in nutritional content. Strategies for individualizing fortification are available; however it is not known whether these are safe, or if they improve outcomes in preterm infants. To determine whether individualizing fortification of breast milk feeds in response to infant blood urea nitrogen (adjustable fortification) or to breast milk macronutrient content as measured with a milk analyzer (targeted fortification) reduces mortality and morbidity and promotes growth and development compared to standard, non-individualized fortification for preterm infants receiving human milk at < 37 weeks' gestation or at birth weight < 2500 grams. We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 9), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), on September 20, 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials. We considered randomized, quasi-randomized, and cluster-randomized controlled trials of preterm infants fed exclusively breast milk that compared a standard non-individualized fortification strategy to individualized fortification using a targeted or adjustable strategy. We considered studies that examined any use of fortification in eligible infants for a minimum duration of two weeks, initiated at any time during enteral feeding, and providing any regimen of human milk feeding. Data were collected using the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors evaluated the quality of the studies and extracted data. We reported analyses of continuous data using mean differences (MDs), and dichotomous data using risk ratios (RRs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Data were extracted from seven RCTs, resulting in eight publications (521 total participants were enrolled among these studies), with duration of study interventions ranging from two to seven weeks. As compared to standard non-individualized fortification, individualized (targeted or adjustable) fortification of enteral feeds probably increased weight gain during the intervention (typical mean difference [MD] 1.88 g/kg/d, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26 to 2.50; 6 studies, 345 participants), may have increased length gain during the intervention (typical MD 0.43 mm/d, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.53; 5 studies, 242 participants), and may have increased head circumference gain during the intervention (typical MD 0.14 mm/d, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.23; 5 studies, 242 participants). Compared to standard non-individualized fortification, targeted fortification probably increased weight gain during the intervention (typical MD 1.87 g/kg/d, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.58; 4 studies, 269 participants) and may have increased length gain during the intervention (typical MD 0.45 mm/d, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57; 3 studies, 166 participants). Adjustable fortification probably increased weight gain during the intervention (typical MD 2.86 g/kg/d, 95% CI 1.69 to 4.03; 3 studies, 96 participants), probably increased gain in length during the intervention (typical MD 0.54 mm/d, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.7; 3 studies, 96 participants), and increased gain in head circumference during the intervention (typical MD 0.36 mm/d, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.5; 3 studies, 96 participants). We are uncertain whether there are differences between individualized versus standard fortification strategies in the incidence of in-hospital mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, culture-proven late-onset bacterial sepsis, retinopathy of prematurity, osteopenia, length of hospital stay, or post-hospital discharge growth. No study reported severe neurodevelopmental disability as an outcome. One study that was published after our literature search was completed is awaiting classification. We found moderate- to low-certainty evidence suggesting that individualized (either targeted or adjustable) fortification of enteral feeds in very low birth weight infants increases growth velocity of weight, length, and head circumference during the intervention compared with standard non-individualized fortification. Evidence showing important in-hospital and post-discharge clinical outcomes was sparse and of very low certainty, precluding inferences regarding safety or clinical benefits beyond short-term growth.

Fabrizio V ，Trzaski JM ，Brownell EA ，Esposito P ，Lainwala S ，Lussier MM ，Hagadorn JI ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Routine monitoring of gastric residual for prevention of necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants.

Abiramalatha T ，Thanigainathan S ，Ninan B 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Routine monitoring of gastric residual for prevention of necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants.

Routine monitoring of gastric residual in preterm infants on gavage feeds is a common practice used to guide initiation and advancement of feeds. It is believed that an increase in or an altered gastric residual may be predictive of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). Withholding monitoring of gastric residual may take away the early indicator and thus may increase the risk of NEC. However, routine monitoring of gastric residual as a guide, in the absence of uniform standards, may lead to unnecessary delay in initiation and advancement of feeds and hence might result in a delay in establishing full enteral feeds. This in turn may increase the duration of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and central venous line usage, increasing the risk of associated complications. Furthermore, delays in establishing full enteral feeds increase the risk of extrauterine growth restriction and neurodevelopmental impairment. • To assess the efficacy and safety of routine monitoring versus no monitoring of gastric residual in preterm infants • To assess the efficacy and safety of routine monitoring of gastric residual based on two different criteria for interrupting feeds or decreasing feed volume in preterm infants SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches in Cochrane CENTRAL via CRS, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL in February 2022. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi- and cluster-RCTs. We selected RCTs that compared routine monitoring versus no monitoring of gastric residual and trials that used two different criteria for gastric residual to interrupt feeds in preterm infants. Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial/harmful outcome (NNTB/NNTH) for dichotomous outcomes with significant results. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We included five studies (423 infants) in this updated review. Routine monitoring versus no routine monitoring of gastric residual in preterm infants Four RCTs with 336 preterm infants met the inclusion criteria for this comparison. Three studies were performed in infants with birth weight of < 1500 g, while one study included infants with birth weight between 750 g and 2000 g. The trials were unmasked but were otherwise of good methodological quality. Routine monitoring of gastric residual:  - probably has little or no effect on the risk of NEC (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.57; 334 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably increases the time to establish full enteral feeds (MD 3.14 days, 95% CI 1.93 to 4.36; 334 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); - may increase the time to regain birth weight (MD 1.70 days, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.39; 80 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence);  - may increase the number of infants with feed interruption episodes (RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.20; NNTH 3, 95% CI 2 to 5; 191 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence);  - probably increases the number of TPN days (MD 2.57 days, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.95; 334 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably increases the risk of invasive infection (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.19; NNTH 10, 95% CI 5 to 100; 334 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality before hospital discharge (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.77 to 5.97; 273 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). Quality and volume of gastric residual compared to quality of gastric residual alone for feed interruption in preterm infants One trial with 87 preterm infants met the inclusion criteria for this comparison. The trial included infants with 1500 g to 2000 g birth weight.  Using two different criteria of gastric residual for feed interruption: - may result in little or no difference in the incidence of NEC (RR 5.35, 95% CI 0.26 to 108.27; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence);  - may result in little or no difference in time to establish full enteral feeds (MD -0.10 days, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.71; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little or no difference in time to regain birth weight (MD 1.00 days, 95% CI -0.37 to 2.37; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little or no difference in number of TPN days (MD 0.80 days, 95% CI -0.78 to 2.38; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little or no difference in the risk of invasive infection (RR 5.35, 95% CI 0.26 to 108.27; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality before hospital discharge (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.67; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence).  - we are uncertain about the effect of using two different criteria of gastric residual on the risk of feed interruption episodes (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.67; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests routine monitoring of gastric residual has little or no effect on the incidence of NEC. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests monitoring gastric residual probably increases the time to establish full enteral feeds, the number of TPN days and the risk of invasive infection. Low-certainty evidence suggests monitoring gastric residual may increase the time to regain birth weight and the number of feed interruption episodes, and may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality before hospital discharge. Further RCTs are warranted to assess the effect on long-term growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Abiramalatha T ，Thanigainathan S ，Ramaswamy VV ，Rajaiah B ，Ramakrishnan S ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》