Objective

Small for gestational age (SGA) preterm infants (PT) are at greatest risk for growth failure. Our objective was to assess the impact of an exclusive human milk diet (HUM) on growth velocities and neonatal morbidities from birth to discharge in a SGA population.

Study design

Multicenter, retrospective cohort study, subgroup analysis of SGA PT comparing a cow’s milk diet (CMD) with HUM diet.

Results

At birth 420 PT were classified as SGA (197 CMD group, 223 HUM group). Demographics and anthropometric measurements were similar. HUM group PT showed improvement in length Z score at discharge (p = 0.024) and reduction in necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) (p = 0.004).

Conclusion

SGA PT fed a HUM diet had significantly decreased incidence of NEC, surgical NEC, and late-onset sepsis. Due to concerns about growth in a HUM diet, it is reassuring SGA infants fed the HUM diet had similar growth to CMD diet with trends toward improvement

Objective

An increasingly common practice is to feed preterm infants a base diet comprising only human milk (HM), usually fortified with a cow's milk (CM)-derived fortifier (CMDF). We evaluated the safety of CMDF in a diet of 100% mother's own milk (MOM) against a HM-derived fortifier (HMDF). To date, this has received little research attention.

Study Design

We reanalyzed a 12-center randomized trial, originally comparing exclusive HM feeding, including MOM, donor milk (DM), and HMDF, versus a CM exposed group fed MOM, preterm formula (PTF), and CMDF1. However, for the current study, we performed a subgroup analysis (n = 114) selecting only infants receiving 100% MOM base diet plus fortification, and fed no DM or PTF. This allowed for an isolated comparison of fortifier type: CMDF versus HMDF to evaluate the primary outcomes: necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and a severe morbidity index of NEC surgery or death; and several secondary outcomes.

Results

CMDF and HMDF groups had similar baseline characteristics. CMDF was associated with higher risk of NEC; relative risk (RR) 4.2 (p = 0.038), NEC surgery or death (RR 5.1, p = 0.014); and reduced head circumference gain (p = 0.04).

Conclusions

In neonates fed, as currently recommended with a MOM-based diet, the safety of CMDF when compared to HMDF has been little researched. We conclude that available evidence points to an increase in adverse outcomes with CMDF, including NEC and severe morbidity comprising NEC surgery or death.

Objective

Substantial losses of nutrients may occur during tube (gavage) feeding of fortified human milk. Our objective was to compare the losses of key macronutrients and minerals based on method of fortification and gavage feeding method.

Methods

We used clinically available gavage feeding systems and measured pre- and post-feeding (end-point) nutrient content of calcium (Ca), phosphorus (Phos), protein, and fat. Comparisons were made between continuous, gravity bolus, and 30-minute infusion pump feeding systems, as well as human milk fortified with donor human milk-based and bovine milk-based human milk fortifier using an in vitro model.

Results

Feeding method was significantly associated with fat and Ca losses, with increased losses in continuous feeds. Fat losses in continuous feeds were substantial, with 40 ± 3 % of initial fat lost during the feeding process. After correction for feeding method, human milk fortified with donor milk-based fortifier was associated with significantly less loss of Ca (8 ± 4% vs. 28 ± 4%, p< 0.001), Phos (3 ± 4% vs. 24 ± 4%, p < 0.001), and fat (17 ± 2% vs. 25 ± 2%, p = 0.001) than human milk fortified with a bovine milk-based fortifier (Mean ± SEM).

Objective

To review the standard processing and testing of human donors and donor milk and to report the frequency of detected markers of potential harm.

Study Design

This was a retrospective analysis of the data gathered by a donor and human milk screening and monitoring process over a period of 3 years.

Results

Screening results from 2011 to the end of 2015 demonstrated that careful history taking resulted in rejection or hold of 29.7% of willing donor candidates. Individual infection screening tests rejected an additional 0.3–2.9 per 1000 donations. DNA fingerprinting of donations eliminated 2 out of 13 491. Drug testing rejected 42 out of 12 408 and dilution or adulteration eliminated 73 out of 4935 donations. Only the dilution rejection rate was significantly higher in the remunerated donors. The details of these results are presented.

Conclusions

There are significant risks involved in the collection, processing and distribution of donor milk-based products. The behaviors of the donors, biochemical and genetic screening and milk processing are critical to mitigation of these recognized risks. Testing at this level of rigor appears to be justified.