Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Wiley full text link Wiley Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

.2019 Jun 27;6(6):CD007263.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007263.pub3.

Dilute versus full-strength formula in exclusively formula-fed preterm or low birth weight infants

Affiliations

Dilute versus full-strength formula in exclusively formula-fed preterm or low birth weight infants

Fauziah Basuki et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev..

Abstract

Background: Preterm infants have fewer nutrient reserves at birth than full-term infants and often receive artificial formula feeds in the absence of expressed breast milk. Although it is generally agreed that feeding must be initiated slowly and advanced with much greater deliberation than in a healthy, full-term infant, the way in which feeds are introduced and advanced in preterm infants varies widely. This review focuses on whether dilute or full-strength formula is the preferable mode of introducing feeds in preterm infants for whom expressed breast milk is unavailable.

Objectives: To assess the effects of dilute versus full-strength formula on the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis, feeding intolerance, weight gain, length of stay in hosptial and time to achieve full calorie intake in exclusively formula-fed preterm or low birth weight infants. A secondary objective was to assess the effects of different dilution strategies.

Search methods: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to update the search in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 9), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 1 October 2018), Embase (1980 to 1 October 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 1 October 2018).We searched clinical trials' registries for ongoing or recently completed trials (clinicaltrials.gov; the World Health Organization's International Trials Registry and Platform; and the ISRCTN Registry).

Selection criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing strengths of formula milk in exclusively formula-fed preterm or low birth weight infants. We excluded studies if infants received formula as a supplement to breast milk.

Data collection and analysis: We independently assessed studies for inclusion. We collected data using the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal, with independent assessment of risk of bias and data extraction. We synthesised mean differences using a fixed-effect meta-analysis model. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

Main results: We included three studies involving 102 preterm or low birth weight infants in the review. The studies compared dilute (double-volume, half-strength) formula with full-strength (20 kcal/oz (˜ 68 to 70 kcal/100 mL)) formula. We assessed all three studies as having unclear risk of bias due to the likely absence of blinding of study personnel and the potential for selection bias in the largest trial. Data for the primary outcome of necrotising enterocolitis were not reported in any of the studies. We could combine two of the studies (88 infants) in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that dilute formula with double-volume (half-strength) may lead to fewer episodes of gastric residuals per day (one study; mean difference (MD) -1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.20 to -0.20; low-certainty evidence), fewer episodes of gastric residuals per baby until attaining 100 kcal/kg (one study; MD -0.80, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.28; low-certainty evidence), fewer episodes of vomiting per day (one study; MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.01; low-certainty evidence) and fewer occurrences of abdominal distension greater than 2 cm (two studies; MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.13; low-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes, data suggest that infants in the dilute formula with double-volume (half-strength) group may have attained an adequate energy intake earlier than infants in the full-strength group (two studies; MD -2.26, 95% CI -2.85 to -1.67; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups for weight gain one week after commencement of intragastric feeds (one study; MD 0.05 kg, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.15; low-certainty evidence). Data were not reported for length of hospital stay.

Authors' conclusions: There is low-certainty evidence from three small, old trials that use of dilute formula in preterm or low birth weight formula-fed infants may lead to an important reduction in the time taken for preterm infants to attain an adequate energy intake.However, our confidence in this result is limited due to uncertainty over risk of bias and sparsity of available data. Dilute formula may reduce incidence of feeding intolerance, but the clinical significance of the reduction is uncertain. The impact on serious gastrointestinal problems, including necrotising enterocolitis, was not reported in any of the trials. Further randomised trials are needed to confirm these results.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

FB: none known

DH: none known

TT: none known

SM: none known

MH: none known

Core editorial and administrative support for this review has been provided by a grant from The Gerber Foundation. The Gerber Foundation is a separately endowed, private foundation, independent from the Gerber Products Company. The grantor has no input on the content of the review or the editorial process (see Declarations of interest).

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram for review version published in 2013.
2
2
Study flow diagram: review update 2018
3
3
Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
4
4
Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Half‐strength formula versus full‐strength formula, Outcome 1: Episodes of abdominal distention > 2 cm
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Half‐strength formula versus full‐strength formula, Outcome 2: Episodes of gastric residuals
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: Half‐strength formula versus full‐strength formula, Outcome 3: Episodes of vomiting per day
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1: Half‐strength formula versus full‐strength formula, Outcome 4: Weight gain one week after starting feeds (kg)
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1: Half‐strength formula versus full‐strength formula, Outcome 5: Days until 420 joules per kilogram
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Anderson 1995 {published data only}
    1. Anderson DM, Heidebrecht A, Annibale DJ. Formula concentration in the initial feeding of premature infants. Pediatric Research 1995;37(4):301.
Currao 1988 {published data only}
    1. Currao WJ, Cox C, Shapiro DL. Diluted formula for beginning the feeding of premature infants. American Journal of Diseases in Childhood 1988;142(7):730-1. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Sarna 1990 {published data only}
    1. Sarna MS, Saili A, Pandey KK, Dutta AK, Mullick DN. Premature infant feeding: role of diluted formula. Indian Pediatrics 1990;27(8):829-33. [PMID: ] - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Armanian 2013 {published data only}
    1. Armanian AM, Mirbod SM, Kazemipour SA, Hassanzade A. Comparison of prolonged low volume milk and routine volume milk on incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight neonates. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences 2013;29 Suppl 1:312-6. [DOI: ]
Fewtrell 1997 {published data only}
    1. Fewtrell MS, Adams C, Wilson DC, Cairns P, McClure G, Lucas A. Randomized trial of high nutrient density formula versus standard formula in chronic lung disease. Acta Paediatrica 1997;86(6):577-82. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Hale 2014 {published data only}
    1. Hale JR. Dilute versus full-strength formula in exclusively formula-fed preterm or low-birth-weight Infants. Critical Care Nurse 2014;34(6):70-2. [DOI: 10.4037/ccn2014741] - DOI
Hodgson 1983 {published data only}
    1. Hodgson MI, Rathkanip B, Torres T, Uauy R. Evaluation of three formulas in very-low-birthweight newborn feeding (< 1,500 gms). Revista Chilena de Nutricion 1983;9(3):222.
Postolow 2000 {published data only}
    1. Postolow FA, Pinchetti S, Iannella M, Placentino C, Azcarate AB, Kurlat IR. Feeding the very low birth weight (VLBW) infant: are there advantages to the use of diluted formula? Pediatric Research 2000;47(4):426a.

Additional references

Cobb 2004
    1. Cobb BA, Carlo WA, Ambalvanan N. Gastric residuals and the relationship to necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2004;113(1 Pt 1):50-3. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Duritz 1979
    1. Duritz G, Oltorf C. Lactobezoar formation associated with high-density caloric formula. Pediatrics 1979;63(4):647-9. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Fenton 2014
    1. Fenton TR, Premji SS, Al-Wassia H, Sauve RS. Higher versus lower protein intake in formula-fed low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No: CD003959. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003959] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT [Computer program]
    1. GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed 7 August 2018. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2015. Available atgradepro.org.
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available fromhandbook.cochrane.org.
Higgins 2017
    1. Higgins JP, Green S editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017. Available fromtraining.cochrane.org/handbook.
Lucas 1986
    1. Lucas A, Bloom SR, Aynsley-Green A. Gut hormones and 'minimal enteral feeding'. Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica 1986;75(5):719-23. [PMID: ] - PubMed
McGuire 2004
    1. McGuire W, Henderson G, Fowlie PT. Feeding the preterm infant. BMJ 2004;329(7476):1227-30. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.329.7476.1227] [PMID: ] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Morgan 2013
    1. Morgan J, Bombell S, McGuire W. Early trophic feeding versus enteral fasting for very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 3. Art. No: CD000504. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000504.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Morgan 2014
    1. Morgan J, Young L, McGuire W. Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 12. Art. No: CD001970. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001970] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Oddie 2017
    1. Oddie S, Young L, McGuire W. Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 8. Art. No: CD001241. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001241.pub7] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Pearson 2011
    1. Pearson F, Johnson MJ, Leaf AA. Milk osmolality: does it matter? Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2013;98(2):F166-9. [DOI: 10.1136/adc.2011.300492] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Review Manager 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Schünemann 2013
    1. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, editor(s). Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach (updated October 2013). GRADE Working Group, 2013. Available fromgdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/app/handbook/handbook.html.
Stern 1982
    1. Stern L. Early postnatal growth of low birth weight infants. What is optimal? Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica. Supplement 1982;296:6-13. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Walsh 1986
    1. Walsh MC, Kliegman RM. Necrotizing enterocolitis: treatment based on staging criteria. Pediatric Clinics of North America 1986;33(1):179-201. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Basuki 2013
    1. Basuki F, Hadiati DR, Turner T, McDonald S, Hakimi M. Dilute versus full strength formula in exclusively formula-fed preterm or low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 11. Art. No: CD007263. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007263.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Wiley full text link Wiley Free PMC article
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp