PERINATOLOGIYA I PEDIATRIYA.2016.1(65):88-94;doi 10.15574/PP.2016.65.88 
 

Clinical effectiveness of hydrolyzed protein preterm formula in prevention of feeding intolerance in preterm very low birth weight infants 
 

Dobryanskyy D., Novikova O., Borysiuk O., Dubrovna Y., Salabay Z.

Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine

Lviv Regional Clinical Hospital, Lviv, Ukraine 
 

The aim of this open randomized study was to investigate whether hydrolyzed protein preterm infant formula improves early feeding tolerance compared with standard preterm infant formula. 
 

Patients and methods. The all very low birth weight infants (n=69) admitted to the NICU were randomly assigned to receive hydrolyzed protein preterm infant formula (3.1 g of protein/100 ml) or standard preterm infant formula if human milk was not available. They were fed with the predetermined formula until the full enteral volume was reached. Nine infants who died were excluded. Primary study outcome was the infant's age in which full enteral volume (150 mL/kg birth weight/d) was achieved. Number and duration of episodes of enteral volume reduction or withholding and postnatal growth rates were compared as well. Daily volume was advanced by 10–20 ml/kg according to the standard protocol. Preprandial gastric residuals up to 50% of the previous feed were tolerated if it was neither increase of abdominal girth >2 cm nor vomiting; otherwise, feedings were reduced or withheld. 
 

Results. Thirty five and 25 (hydrolyzed protein preterm infant formula vs standard preterm infant formula) infants were enrolled into final analysis. Formula bolus feeding was started in all infants on the first day of life. There was no significant difference with regard to birth weight, gestational age, and need for resuscitation at birth. The infant's age in which full enteral volume was reached was lower with hydrolyzed protein preterm infant formula feeding (12.46 [5.2] vs 14.4 [6.76] days) but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.21). Any failure to increase daily volume was seen in 20 (57%) newborns fed with hydrolyzed protein preterm infant formula and in 15 (60%) control infants (p>0.05), but feeding was withheld almost 2 times more often in infants fed with standard preterm infant formula as compared to hydrolyzed protein preterm infant formula (36% vs 17%; p<0.1). Enteral volume was reduced of withheld for the similar period of time. The patterns of postnatal physical growth were identical in the groups and there was no difference in any clinically significant outcomes. 
 

Conclusions. Hydrolyzed protein preterm infant formula can improve the feeding tolerance and enable a more rapid establishment of full enteral feeding in very low birth weight infants compared with standard preterm infant formula. There is no growth concerns of very low birth weight infants fed with the hydrolyzed protein preterm infant formula containing high concentration of serum protein. 
 

Key words: hydrolyzed protein preterm formula, enteral feeding intolerance, preterm very low birth weight infants. 
 

REFERENCES

1. Billeaud C, Guillet J, Sandler B. 1990. Gastric emptying in infants with or without gastro-oesophageal reflux according to the type of milk. Eur J Clin Nutr. 44: 577—583. PMid:2209513

2. Carter BM. 2012. Feeding intolerance in preterm infants and standard of care guidelines for nursing assessments. Newborn & Infant Nursing Reviews. 12: 187—201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.nainr.2012.09.007

3. Corpeleijin WE, Kouwenhoven SM, van Goudoever JB. 2013.Optimal growth of preterm infants. World Rev Nutr Diet. 106: 149—155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000342584; PMid:23428694

4. Hyams JS, Treem WR, Etienne NL et al. 1995. Effect of infant formula on stool characteristics of young infants. Pediatrics. 95: 50—54. PMid:7770309

5. Yu MX, Zhuang SQ, Wang DH et al. 2014. Effects of extensively hydrolyzed protein formula on feeding and growth in preterm infants: a multicenter controlled clinical study. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi. 16(7): 684—690. PMid:25008873

6. Embleton NE, Pang N, Cooke RJ. 2001. Postnatal malnutrition and growth retardation: an inevitable consequence of current recommendations in preterm infants? Pediatrics. 107: 270—273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.107.2.270; PMid:11158457

7. Agostoni C, Buonocore G, Carnielli VP et al. 2010. Enteral nutrient supply for preterm infants: commentary from the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition Committee on Nutrition. JPGN. 50: 85—91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/mpg.0b013e3181adaee0

8. ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition. Breast-feeding: a commentary by the ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. 2009. 49: 112—125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0b013e31819f1e05; PMid:19502997

9. Szajewska H, Albrecht P, Stoitiska B et al. 2001. Extensive and partial protein hydrolysate preterm formulas: the effect on growth rate, protein metabolism indices, and plasma amino acid concentrations. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 32: 303—309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005176-200103000-00013; PMid:11345180

10. Corvaglia L, Mariani F, Aceti A et al. 2013. Extensively hydrolyzed protein formula reduces acid gastro-esophageal reflux in symptomatic preterm infants. Early Hum Dev. 89(7): 453—455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2013.04.003; PMid:23642476

11. Fanaro S. 2012. Strategies to improve feeding tolerance in preterm infants. J Maternal-Fetal and Neonat Medicine. 25(S4): 54—56. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2012.715021

12. Corpeleijn WE, Vermeulen MJ, van den Akker CH, van Goudoever JB. 2011. Feeding very-low-birth-weight infants: our aspirations versus the reality in practice. Ann Nutr Metab. 58; Suppl 1: 20—29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000323384; PMid:21701164

13. Fenton TR, Kim JH. 2013. A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants. BMC Pediatrics. 13: 59—72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-13-59; PMid:23601190 PMCid:PMC3637477

14. Groh-Wargo S, Sapsford A. 2009. Enteral nutrition support of the preterm infant in the neonatal intensive care unit. Nutrition in Clinical Practice. 24: 363—376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0884533609335310; PMid:19483066

15. Guidelines on optimal feeding of low birth-weight infants in low- and middle-income countries. WHO, 2011: 51.

16. Mihatsch WA, Franz AR, Hogel J, Pohlandt F. 2002.Hydrolyzed protein accelerates feeding advancement in very low birth weight infants. Pediatrics. 110: 1199—1203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.110.6.1199; PMid:12456919

17. Mihatsch WA, Hogel J, Pohlandt F. 2001. Hydrolyzed protein accelerates the gastro-intestinal transport of formula in preterm infants. Acta Paediatr. 90: 196—198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2001.tb00284.x; PMid:11236051

18. Jadcherla SR, Kliegman RM. 2002. Studies of feeding intolerance in very low birth weight infants: definition and significance. Pediatrics. 109: 516—517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.109.3.516; PMid:11875150

19. Livingston MN, Shawyer AC, Rosenbaum PL. 2015.Glycerin enemas and suppositories in premature infants: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 135: 1093—1106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-0143; PMid:25986027

20. Ehrenkranz RA, Younes N, Lemons JA et al. 1999. Longitudinal growth of hospitalized very low birth weight infants. Pediatrics. 104: 280—289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.104.2.280; PMid:10429008

21. Mihatsch WA, Pohlandt F. 1999. Protein hydrolysate formula maintains homeostasis of plasma amino acids in preterm infants. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 29: 406—410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005176-199910000-00007; PMid:10512399

22. Moore TA, Wilson ME. 2011. Feeding intolerance: a concept analysis. Adv Neonatal Care. 11: 149—154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0b013e31821ba28e; PMid:21730906

23. Morgan J, Young L, McGuire W. 2013. Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 3. Art. No.: CD001241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001970.pub4; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001241.pub4

24. Ng E. Shah VS. 2008. Erythromycin for the prevention and treatment of feeding intolerance in preterm infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 3. Art. No.: CD001815. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001815.pub2

25. Nutrition of the preterm infant: scientific basis and practical guidelines. Ed by RC Tsang, R Uauy, B Koletzko, SH Zlotkin. 2nd ed. Cincinnati: Digital Educational Publishing, 2005: 409.

26. Picaud JC, Rigo J, Normand S et al. 2001. Nutritional efficacy of preterm formula with partially hydrolyzed protein source: a randomized pilot study. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 32: 555—561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005176-200105000-00012; PMid:11429516

27. Parker LA, Neu J, Torrazza RM, Li Y. 2013. Scientifically based strategies for enteral feeding in premature infants. NeoReviews. 14: e350—359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/neo.14-7-e350

28. Szajewska H. 2007. Extensive and partial protein hydrolysate preterm formulas. J Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. 45: S183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.mpg.0000302969.60373.39; PMid:18185089

29. Tan-Dy CRY, Ohlsson A. 2013. Lactase treated feeds to promote growth and feeding tolerance in preterm infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 3. Art. No.: CD004591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004591.pub3; PMid:23543535

30. Young TE. 2010. Pharmacology review: pharmacologic treatment of feeding intolerance in neonates. NeoReviews. 11: e139—e143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/neo.11-3-e139