Next Article in Journal
Towards a Common Definition for the Diagnosis of Iron Deficiency in Chronic Inflammatory Diseases
Next Article in Special Issue
Nutrient Intake with Early Progressive Enteral Feeding and Growth of Very Low-Birth-Weight Newborns
Previous Article in Journal
Mental and Behavioural Responses to Bahá’í Fasting: Looking behind the Scenes of a Religiously Motivated Intermittent Fast Using a Mixed Methods Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sex-Specific Effects of Nutritional Supplements for Infants Born Early or Small: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis (ESSENCE IPD-MA) I—Cognitive Function and Metabolic Risk
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/nu14051032
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Gestational Age-Related Associations between Early-Life Feeding Trajectories and Growth Outcomes at Term Equivalent Age in Very Preterm Infants

by
Yung-Chieh Lin
1,2,†,
Chi-Hsiang Chu
3,4,†,
Yen-Ju Chen
1,2,
Ray-Bing Chen
4 and
Chao-Ching Huang
1,5,*
1
Department of Pediatrics, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 704302, Taiwan
2
Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng-Kung University, Tainan 701401, Taiwan
3
Department of Statistics, Tunghai University, Taichung 407224, Taiwan
4
Department of Statistics, Institute of Data Science, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701401, Taiwan
5
Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110301, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Nutrients 2022, 14(5), 1032; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14051032
Submission received: 27 December 2021 / Revised: 25 February 2022 / Accepted: 28 February 2022 / Published: 28 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feeding in Preterm Infants)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Establishing the different feeding trajectories based on daily enteral feeding data in preterm infants at different gestational ages (GAs), may help to identify the risks and extrauterine growth restriction (EUGR) outcomes associated with the adverse feeding pattern. In a single center, we retrospectively included 625 infants born at 23–30 weeks of gestation who survived to term-equivalent age (TEA) from 2009 to 2020. The infants were designated into three GA groups: 23–26, 27–28, and 29–30 weeks. The daily enteral feeding amounts in the first 56 postnatal days were analyzed to determine the feeding trajectories. The primary outcomes were EUGR in body weight and head circumference calculated, respectively, by the changes between birth and TEA. Clustering analysis identified two feeding trajectories, namely the improving and adverse patterns in each GA group. The adverse feeding pattern that occurred in 49%, 20%, and 17% of GA 23–26, 27–28, and 29–30 weeks, respectively, was differentiated from the improving feeding pattern as early as day 7 in infants at GA 23–26 and 27–28 weeks, in contrast to day 21 in infants at GA 29–30 weeks. The adverse feeding patterns were associated with sepsis, respiratory, and gastrointestinal morbidities at GA 23–26 weeks; sepsis, hemodynamic and gastrointestinal morbidities at GA 27–28 weeks; and preeclampsia, respiratory, and gastrointestinal morbidities at GA 29–30 weeks. Using the improving feeding group as a reference, the adverse feeding group showed significantly higher adjusted odds ratios of EUGR in body weight and head circumference in infants at GA 23–26 and 27–28 weeks. Identifying the early-life adverse feeding trajectories may help recognize the related EUGR outcomes of preterm infants in a GA-related manner.

1. Introduction

The advances in medical care in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) has resulted in an increasing survival rate of extremely preterm infants. Studies have demonstrated the importance of adequate feeding, nutrition and growth, especially in this preterm population [1,2]. Early-life feeding problems may be associated with adverse growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes [1,2,3]. Nutritional support through enteral feeding for postnatal growth in extremely preterm infants remains a challenge in clinical practice [4,5].
Growth velocities of 14–20 g/kg/day using volumes of approximately 120–150 mL/kg/day of fortified human milk or preterm formula have been recommended to provide adequate growth rates [3,6,7]. However, the introduction and advancement of enteral feeding, especially in extremely preterm infants, is often delayed or interrupted because of prematurity-related risks, exposures, and gastrointestinal (GI) morbidities [8,9,10]. Risks and exposures, such as sepsis, hypotension and hypoxic respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation [11,12,13,14], and the functional immaturity of GI tracts, may have a significant impact on the feeding progression of preterm infants during the gestational age (GA). In addition, GI morbidities, such as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and non-NEC morbidities, including meconium ileus, spontaneous intestinal perforation or volvulus, may also change the enteral feeding trajectory differently in preterm infants with different GA [2].
Many studies have focused on the relationship between early feeding, protein and caloric intake and postnatal growth outcome in preterm infants [2,3,8,9,12]. The amount, composition and sources of nutrition support—such as essential fatty acids, docosahexaenoic acid and growth promoters—provided to preterm infants is important for normal growth and development; it may also influence the development of an immature gastrointestinal tract [15,16,17,18]. In contrast, very few studies have examined whether there are different feeding trajectories during admission in preterm infants with different GA groups. Establishing and monitoring different feeding patterns based on daily enteral feeding amounts after birth, in a GA-related manner, may be important for the early identification of vulnerable infants who will follow an adverse feeding trajectory that could lead to extrauterine growth restriction (EUGR) outcomes in that particular GA group.
Longitudinal data are data in which each variable is measured repeatedly over time. One method for analyzing longitudinal data is clustering analysis. The kmlShape, a method for data partitioning, provides clusters on the basis of trajectory shape; kmlShape analysis allows for the grouping of individuals whose trajectories have similar forms, albeit with a shifting of positions over time [19]. This analysis has been applied to stratify the heterogenic trajectories within the study populations according to the shapes after examining their time-series and longitudinal data [19,20]. Using kmlShape clustering analysis of the daily enteral feeding amounts (mL/kg/day) in the first 56 days of life to establish the feeding trajectory patterns in three different GA very preterm populations, this study aimed to (1) delineate the morbidities associated with the adverse feeding patterns, and (2) identify the differential impacts on EUGR outcomes after adverse feeding patterns.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This study enrolled 717 very preterm infants who were born between 23 and 30 weeks of gestation and admitted within three days after birth to the tertiary NICU of this university hospital from January 2009 to October 2020. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of National Cheng Kung University Hospital (Approval code: A-ER-110-81).
The 625 infants (87%) who survived to term-equivalent age (TEA) (postmenstrual age 38–42 completed weeks) were included for analysis. The infants were designated into three populations: GA 23–26 weeks, 27–28 weeks, and 29–30 weeks.

2.2. The Study Setting and Feeding Policy

This study was carried out in a 20-bed tertiary neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at the National Cheng Kung University Hospital in Tainan, Taiwan. Approximately 350 neonates were admitted to the unit per year, including 60–80 very preterm infants. A body weight measurement was usually performed daily during morning care as a baseline for prescribing pharmacy dosages and milk volumes.
Based on the feeding protocol of preterm infants in this university hospital, very preterm infants are initiated with parenteral and enteral nutrition soon after birth [21]. If the preterm neonate is not hypotensive or under advanced invasive respiratory support, enteral feeding is usually started with trophic feeding using the mother’s own breast milk or human donor milk, regardless of gestational age, and maintained at 10–20 mL/kg/day for 3 to 5 days. If the infant tolerates trophic feeding, advancement of feeding volume is evaluated daily prior to each feeding with the increment increased by 10–20 mL/kg/day. Withholding of advancement or cancelation of feeding for the day is evaluated by physicians and nurses, when dark bilious gastric residuals, gastrointestinal bleeding or unstable vital signs are observed. Fortification begins when the daily enteral feeding amount is more than 100 mL/kg/d. Intravenous catheters are removed and parenteral fluid is discontinued when the enteral feeding volume reaches full enteral feeding of 120 mL/kg/day [9,22,23]. During fortification, increment of milk volume is withheld for 1–2 days with an intensive observation of the GI condition as the published protocol [21].

2.3. Daily Enteral Feeding Amount Calculation for Feeding Trajectory Analysis

The information of daily enteral feeding data and body weight in the first 56 postnatal days were retrieved from an electronic medical system and presented as mL/kg/day, calculated based on the body weight measured on the day. Within each GA group, the feeding trajectories were analyzed based on the daily enteral feeding amounts using the “kmlShape” package in R to cluster meaningful groups [19].

2.4. Demographics, Risks and GI Morbidities

Demographics, perinatal and neonatal risk factors, neonatal morbidities and GI morbidities requiring surgery were reviewed by a case manager and two neonatologists (Supplemental Materials). Neonatal risks encompassed 5-min Apgar scores, the duration of mechanical ventilation (IMV), and postnatal steroid use. Neonatal morbidities included respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) requiring surfactant therapy, early-onset sepsis, late-onset sepsis, hypotension requiring vasopressors, severe intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH; grade 3 or 4), cystic periventricular leukomalacia (cPVL), hemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus (hs-PDA) requiring surgical closure, retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). GI events included meconium ileus, stage 1 and severe necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), and non-NEC GI morbidities requiring surgical intervention, such as meconium ileus, spontaneous intestine perforation, volvulus and intestine adhesions.

2.5. Primary Outcome: EUGR at TEA

We recoded the anthropometric measurements for body weight and head circumference at birth and at TEA [24]. EUGR was determined by changes in body weight and head circumference between birth and at TEA. The z-scores for body weight and head circumference were derived from Fenton’s postnatal growth charts [25]. A delta z of less than 1 indicated EUGR; less than 2 indicated severe EUGR [26,27,28].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Demographic data and perinatal and neonatal risk factors were compared among the three GA preterm groups using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables, and analysis of variance or Kruskal–Wallis tests for continuous variables. The logistic regression model was applied to identify the risk factors and morbidities that might affect these feeding trajectories. Using logistic regression and adjusting for the selected risk factors, the association between the feeding trajectory pattern and EUGR outcomes was analyzed. All candidate covariates were selected by the p-value of less than 0.1 from univariate analysis. After univariate analysis, all candidate factors were included in the multivariable analysis and were chosen by the stepwise procedure with the Akaike information criterion. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

Of the 625 infants (87%) included for analysis, 183 infants (29%) were at GA 23–26 weeks, 215 infants (35%) at GA 27–28 weeks, and 227 infants (36%) at GA 29–30 weeks. Among the three GA preterm groups, there were significant differences in the demographic risks, respiratory/hemodynamic morbidities, and GI morbidities. The smaller the GA group, the older the postnatal age when trophic feeding was started, and full feeding was reached (Supplemental Table S1). The kmlShape analysis identified two distinct feeding trajectories, namely improving feeding and adverse feeding patterns, for infants in each GA group (Figure 1).
In infants at GA 23–26 weeks, improving feeding occurred in 94 infants (51%) and adverse feeding in 89 infants (49%). Compared to the improving feeding group, the adverse feeding group was on a significantly smaller daily median milk volume by postnatal day 7 (p < 0.01), and the differences increased from days 7 to 56 (all p < 0.001) (Figure 2A). In infants at GA 27–28 weeks, 173 (80%) followed the improving feeding pattern, while 42 (20%) had the adverse feeding pattern. The adverse feeding group had a significantly lower daily milk volume than the improving group by day 7 (p < 0.001), and the differences increased throughout days 7 to 56 (all p < 0.001) (Figure 2B). In infants at GA 29–30 weeks, 188 (83%) had the improving feeding pattern and 39 (17%) followed the adverse feeding pattern. The two feeding groups had similar daily milk volumes until day 21 (p < 0.05) when a late deterioration occurred, and the differences remained significant at days 28, 35, 42, and 56 (Figure 2C).
Compared to the improving feeding group, the adverse feeding group was significantly lower in gestational age, had higher rates of respiratory/hemodynamic morbidities, including hypotension requiring vasopressors, hs-PDA requiring surgery, late-onset sepsis and a longer duration requiring IMV, and GI morbidities, such as non-NEC events requiring surgery in infants at GA 23–26 and 27–28 weeks. The adverse feeding group also had significantly higher rates of NEC GI morbidities, including stage 1 and severe NEC in infants at GA 27–28 and 29–30 weeks (Table 1).
Using the improving feeding trajectory as a reference, univariate logistic regression analysis (Supplemental Table S2) followed by multivariable logistic regression (Table 2) were undertaken to determine the odds ratios of risks and morbidities associated with the adverse feeding trajectory in each GA group. For GA 23–26 weeks, the higher odds ratios included late-onset sepsis, longer IMV duration, and non-NEC GI events requiring surgery. For GA 27–28 weeks, the risks included late-onset sepsis, cPVL, hs-PDA requiring surgery, and NEC at any stage and non-NEC events requiring surgery, while for GA 29–30 weeks, the risks were preeclampsia, longer IMV duration, and NEC at any stage.
At TEA, compared to the improving feeding group, the adverse feeding group had significantly higher rates of EUGR in body weight (∆z < −1) in the three preterm groups, and severe EUGR in body weight (∆z < −2) in preterm infants at GA 23–26 and 27–28 weeks (Table 3). The adverse feeding group also showed EUGR in head circumference at GA 23–26 and 27–28 weeks, but not at GA 29–30 weeks. Using the improving feeding group as the reference, the adverse feeding group showed significantly higher adjusted odds ratios of EUGR in body weight across the three GA groups, as well as in head circumference in infants at GA 23–26 and 27–28 weeks (Table 4).

4. Discussion

The close monitoring of the respective feeding patterns of preterm neonates in each GA preterm population was essential to identify any deviations from normal growth patterns. In this study, we established improving versus adverse feeding patterns by clustering analysis in each of the three different GA preterm populations. Relative to the improving feeding pattern, the adverse feeding pattern occurred in almost 50% of infants at GA 23–26 weeks, and 17–20% of infants at GA 27–28 and 29–30 weeks. The adverse feeding pattern could be distinguished from the improving pattern as early as postnatal day 7 in the two extremely preterm GA groups, but as late as day 21 in the very preterm group, which was significantly related to the shared and distinct respiratory/hemodynamic and GI morbidities that occurred in each preterm group. In addition, the smaller the GA group, the larger the impact of the adverse feeding pattern on EUGR outcomes in body weight and head circumference. These findings suggested that establishing feeding trajectories in different GA preterm groups could early identify infants at risk of worse growth outcome in body weight and head circumference at TEA, particularly in extremely preterm infants. Feeding difficulties in preterm infants, and the consequent effects on EUGR rates, are already known and well described in the literature. This study is not only the first to establish different feeding trajectories based on data for daily enteral feeding amounts in preterm infants at different GA groups, but it also identified the specific risks and morbidities that are related to adverse GA feeding patterns.
Preterm infants with EUGR are considered to be at risk of abnormal growth and neurodevelopment outcomes in childhood [29,30]. The prevalence rate of EUGR, including body weight and head circumference increases as GA decreases [31]. A considerable number of studies have focused on the relationship between detailed nutritional intakes, such as early feeding, higher volume of feeding, protein intakes, milk fortification, caloric intakes and postnatal growth outcomes in preterm infants [3,9,10,32]. However, very few studies have examined the association of the adverse feeding trajectories with EUGR outcomes in a GA-related manner.
We categorized preterm infants into three different GA groups and revealed that the two different feeding patterns in each GA group had a differential association with EUGR in terms of body weight and head circumference, defined by the Δz-scores between birth and TEA. The EUGR in both body weight and head circumference occurred simultaneously only in infants at GA 23–26 and 27–28 weeks, but not in infants at GA 29–30 weeks. In-hospital head circumference growth could be more accurate than body weight to predict neurodevelopmental outcomes [33]. Therefore, our findings suggested that the head-size sparing effect by EUGR in terms of body weight after the GA-related adverse feeding trajectory occurs in infants at GA 29–30 weeks, but not in infants below 29 weeks’ gestation. The vulnerability to neurodevelopmental impairment after early-life EUGR body weight most likely occurs in extremely preterm infants.
Monitoring the changes in daily median feeding amount could provide valuable information for early identification of extremely preterm infants who are likely to develop adverse feeding trajectories as early as postnatal day 7. In contrast, the feeding patterns of very preterm infants at GA 29–30 weeks were quite different to those of extremely preterm infants. In this GA group, infants had similar feeding patterns until day 21, when feeding deterioration occurred due to the onset of NEC in this preterm population. These findings suggested that identifying infants who will follow an adverse feeding trajectory early by the daily feeding amount is more applicable to extremely preterm infants. The feeding pattern of progression followed by late deterioration was distinctive for the very preterm infants.
Respiratory/hemodynamic morbidities, such as RDS, hs-PDA, and IMV use, have been reported to be related to feeding intolerance in preterm infants [13,34,35,36]. One study showed that neonatal morbidities, such as BPD, PDA and NEC, did not differ between higher (180–200 mL/kg/day) and usual-volume (140–160 mL/kg/day) feedings after establishing full enteral feedings (≥120 mL/kg/day) in infants with a GA of less than 33 weeks and a birth weight of 1001–2500 g [9]. Our study found that the progression patterns of daily tolerated enteral feeding to full feeding were associated with the shared and distinct respiratory/hemodynamic morbidities that infants experienced in the NICU in each of the three different GA groups. The adversities included late-onset sepsis and prolonged IMV for infants at GA 23–26 weeks; late-onset sepsis, cPVL, and hs-PDA requiring surgery for infants at GA 27–28 weeks; and preeclampsia and prolonged IMV at GA 29–30 weeks.
The introduction and advancement of enteral feeds for preterm infants are often delayed because of concerns that early full enteral feeding will not be well tolerated or may increase the risk of NEC [3,6]. Our findings did not support that early full enteral feeding increased the risk of NEC. Instead, we found that the GI morbidities related to the adverse feeding trajectory were mainly non-NEC complications requiring surgery for infants at GA 23–26 weeks, NEC and non-NEC GI morbidities for infants at GA 27–28 weeks, and NEC at GA 29–30 weeks. These findings suggested that the transition to enteral feeding and the tolerance toward advancing enteral feeding volume for nutrition support could pose great challenges for the extremely immature gastrointestinal tract due to their compromised digestive functions, especially in infants at GA 23–26 weeks [2].

Strength and Limitations

Feeding trajectories are important not only for nutritional support but also for the growth outcomes of preterm infants. In this study, we defined EUGR by the z-score changes in body weight and head circumference between birth and TEA instead of at discharge or PMA 36 weeks, as frequently used by others [29,33]. We did not include the daily milk type, caloric intakes, and detailed macro/micronutrients data for analysis. It is well known that human milk is tolerated better than formula, which may affect feeding progression. However, more than 90% of infants in our unit were exclusively under human milk feeding before taking fortified milk. The long-term growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes after early-life adverse feeding trajectories in infants at different GA groups remain to be elucidated. A multi-center prospective collaborative study using similar feeding protocols to establish the GA-specific feeding trajectories is vital for the precision in nutritional support and the medical care of preterm infants in each GA group.

5. Conclusions

Data for daily enteral feeding amounts are valuable for preterm infants. Establishing the GA-related feeding trajectories based on these data for preterm infants may lead to early identification of morbidities. Close monitoring of different feeding patterns is important for early mitigation with GA-related morbidities, in order to reverse adverse feeding trajectories, thereby reducing EUGR outcomes for vulnerable infants.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/nu14051032/s1, Supplemental Materials. The definitions of neonatal risks and morbidities and extrauterine growth restriction outcomes; Supplemental Table S1. Differences in demographics, respiratory/hemodynamic morbidities, and GI morbidities among the three different gestational age preterm groups; Supplemental Table S2. Univariate logistic regression models of the demographics and morbidities related to the adverse feeding pattern in infants in each gestational age preterm group [37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.-C.H.; methodology, Y.-C.L.; validation, Y.-J.C. and R.-B.C.; formal analysis, C.-H.C. and R.-B.C.; investigation, Y.-C.L. and Y.-J.C.; resource, C.-C.H.; data curation, C.-H.C., R.-B.C. and C.-C.H.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.-C.L. and C.-H.C.; writing—review and editing, C.-C.H.; visualization, Y.-C.L.; supervision, C.-C.H.; project administration, C.-C.H.; funding acquisition, C.-C.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by grants from the Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 110-2314-B-006-051; MOST 110-2314-B-006-113), and the grant of National Cheng Kung University Hospital (NCKUH-11001002; NCKUH-11101001; NCKUH-11106013).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of National Cheng Kung University Hospital (protocol code A-ER-110-081, date: 21 May 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study, which was approved by our Institutional Review Board.

Data Availability Statement

The corresponding author had full access to the dataset used and analyzed during the current study. The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Taiwan Premature Baby Foundation and all team members in charge of the data collection and assessment of the children. None of these individuals were compensated for their contributions. The authors thank Timothy Lane from Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan to proofread the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Villar, J.; Giuliani, F.; Barros, F.; Roggero, P.; Coronado Zarco, I.A.; Rego, M.A.S.; Ochieng, R.; Gianni, M.L.; Rao, S.; Lambert, A.; et al. Monitoring the Postnatal Growth of Preterm Infants: A Paradigm Change. Pediatrics 2018, 141, e20172467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Harding, J.E.; Cormack, B.E.; Alexander, T.; Alsweiler, J.M.; Bloomfield, F.H. Advances in nutrition of the newborn infant. Lancet 2017, 389, 1660–1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Walsh, V.; Brown, J.V.E.; Copperthwaite, B.R.; Oddie, S.J.; McGuire, W. Early full enteral feeding for preterm or low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 12, Cd013542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alyahya, W.; Simpson, J.; Garcia, A.L.; Mactier, H.; Edwards, C.A. Early versus Delayed Fortification of Human Milk in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review. Neonatology 2020, 117, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Stevens, T.P.; Shields, E.; Campbell, D.; Combs, A.; Horgan, M.; La Gamma, E.F.; Xiong, K.; Kacica, M. Statewide Initiative to Reduce Postnatal Growth Restriction among Infants <31 Weeks of Gestation. J. Pediatr. 2018, 197, 82–89.e82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dorling, J.; Abbott, J.; Berrington, J.; Bosiak, B.; Bowler, U.; Boyle, E.; Embleton, N.; Hewer, O.; Johnson, S.; Juszczak, E.; et al. Controlled Trial of Two Incremental Milk-Feeding Rates in Preterm Infants. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 1434–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Maas, C.; Franz, A.R.; von Krogh, S.; Arand, J.; Poets, C.F. Growth and morbidity of extremely preterm infants after early full enteral nutrition. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018, 103, F79–F81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kwok, T.C.; Dorling, J.; Gale, C. Early enteral feeding in preterm infants. Semin. Perinatol. 2019, 43, 151159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Travers, C.P.; Wang, T.; Salas, A.A.; Schofield, E.; Dills, M.; Laney, D.; Yee, A.; Bhatia, A.; Winter, L.; Ambalavanan, N.; et al. Higher- or Usual-Volume Feedings in Infants Born Very Preterm: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Pediatr. 2020, 224, 66–71.e61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Izquierdo Renau, M.; Aldecoa-Bilbao, V.; Balcells Esponera, C.; Del Rey Hurtado de Mendoza, B.; Iriondo Sanz, M.; Iglesias-Platas, I. Applying Methods for Postnatal Growth Assessment in the Clinical Setting: Evaluation in a Longitudinal Cohort of Very Preterm Infants. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Martini, S.; Aceti, A.; Galletti, S.; Beghetti, I.; Faldella, G.; Corvaglia, L. To Feed or Not to Feed: A Critical Overview of Enteral Feeding Management and Gastrointestinal Complications in Preterm Neonates with a Patent Ductus Arteriosus. Nutrients 2019, 12, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Zozaya, C.; Avila-Alvarez, A.; Arruza, L.; Garcia-Munoz Rodrigo, F.; Fernandez-Perez, C.; Castro, A.; Cuesta, M.T.; Vacas, B.; Couce, M.L.; Vento Torres, M.; et al. The Effect of Morbidity and Sex on Postnatal Growth of Very Preterm Infants: A Multicenter Cohort Study. Neonatology 2019, 115, 348–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Clyman, R.I.; Liebowitz, M.; Kaempf, J.; Erdeve, O.; Bulbul, A.; Håkansson, S.; Lindqvist, J.; Farooqi, A.; Katheria, A.; Sauberan, J.; et al. PDA-TOLERATE Trial: An Exploratory Randomized Controlled Trial of Treatment of Moderate-to-Large Patent Ductus Arteriosus at 1 Week of Age. J. Pediatr. 2019, 205, 41–48.e46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chandrasekharan, P.; Lakshminrusimha, S.; Chowdhury, D.; Van Meurs, K.; Keszler, M.; Kirpalani, H.; Das, A.; Walsh, M.C.; McGowan, E.C.; Higgins, R.D. Early Hypoxic Respiratory Failure in Extreme Prematurity: Mortality and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes. Pediatrics 2020, 146, e20193318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Buddington, R.K.; Yakimkova, T.; Adebiyi, A.; Chizhikov, V.V.; Iskusnykh, I.Y.; Buddington, K.K. Organ Growth and Intestinal Functions of Preterm Pigs Fed Low and High Protein Formulas with or without Supplemental Leucine or Hydroxymethylbutyrate as Growth Promoters. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 687703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wendel, K.; Pfeiffer, H.C.V.; Fugelseth, D.M.; Nestaas, E.; Domellöf, M.; Skålhegg, B.S.; Elgstøen, K.B.P.; Rootwelt, H.; Pettersen, R.D.; Pripp, A.H.; et al. Effects of nutrition therapy on growth, inflammation and metabolism in immature infants: A study protocol of a double-blind randomized controlled trial (ImNuT). BMC Pediatr. 2021, 21, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chizhikov, D.; Buddington, R.K.; Iskusnykh, I.Y. Effects of Phosphatidylserine Source of Docosahexaenoic Acid on Cerebellar Development in Preterm Pigs. Brain Sci. 2020, 10, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Buddington, R.K.; Chizhikov, V.V.; Iskusnykh, I.Y.; Sable, H.J.; Sable, J.J.; Holloway, Z.R.; Blumenfeld Katzir, T.; van der Merwe, M.; Yakimkova, T.; Buddington, K.K.; et al. A Phosphatidylserine Source of Docosahexanoic Acid Improves Neurodevelopment and Survival of Preterm Pigs. Nutrients 2018, 10, 637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Genolini, C.; Ecochard, R.; Benghezal, M.; Driss, T.; Andrieu, S.; Subtil, F. kmlShape: An Efficient Method to Cluster Longitudinal Data (Time-Series) According to Their Shapes. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0150738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. MacBean, V.; Lunt, A.; Drysdale, S.B.; Yarzi, M.N.; Rafferty, G.F.; Greenough, A. Predicting healthcare outcomes in prematurely born infants using cluster analysis. Pediatr. Pulmonol. 2018, 53, 1067–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Lin, Y.C.; Chen, Y.J.; Huang, C.C.; Shieh, C.C. Concentrated Preterm Formula as a Liquid Human Milk Fortifier at Initiation Stage in Extremely Low Birth Weight Preterm Infants: Short Term and 2-year Follow-up Outcomes. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Salas, A.A.; Cuna, A.; Bhat, R.; McGwin, G., Jr.; Carlo, W.A.; Ambalavanan, N. A randomised trial of re-feeding gastric residuals in preterm infants. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2015, 100, F224–F228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Glackin, S.J.; O’Sullivan, A.; George, S.; Semberova, J.; Miletin, J. High flow nasal cannula versus NCPAP, duration to full oral feeds in preterm infants: A randomised controlled trial. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2017, 102, F329–F332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Brown, N.C.; Doyle, L.W.; Bear, M.J.; Inder, T.E. Alterations in neurobehavior at term reflect differing perinatal exposures in very preterm infants. Pediatrics 2006, 118, 2461–2471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fenton, T.R.; Nasser, R.; Eliasziw, M.; Kim, J.H.; Bilan, D.; Sauve, R. Validating the weight gain of preterm infants between the reference growth curve of the fetus and the term infant. BMC Pediatr. 2013, 13, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Fenton, T.R.; Cormack, B.; Goldberg, D.; Nasser, R.; Alshaikh, B.; Eliasziw, M.; Hay, W.W.; Hoyos, A.; Anderson, D.; Bloomfield, F.; et al. “Extrauterine growth restriction” and “postnatal growth failure” are misnomers for preterm infants. J. Perinatol. 2020, 40, 704–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kim, Y.J.; Shin, S.H.; Cho, H.; Shin, S.H.; Kim, S.H.; Song, I.G.; Kim, E.K.; Kim, H.S. Extrauterine growth restriction in extremely preterm infants based on the Intergrowth-21st Project Preterm Postnatal Follow-up Study growth charts and the Fenton growth charts. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2020, 180, 817–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pampanini, V.; Boiani, A.; De Marchis, C.; Giacomozzi, C.; Navas, R.; Agostino, R.; Dini, F.; Ghirri, P.; Cianfarani, S. Preterm infants with severe extrauterine growth retardation (EUGR) are at high risk of growth impairment during childhood. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2015, 174, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. De Rose, D.U.; Cota, F.; Gallini, F.; Bottoni, A.; Fabrizio, G.C.; Ricci, D.; Romeo, D.M.; Mercuri, E.; Vento, G.; Maggio, L. Extra-uterine growth restriction in preterm infants: Neurodevelopmental outcomes according to different definitions. Eur. J. Paediatr. Neurol. 2021, 33, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Martinez-Jimenez, M.D.; Gomez-Garcia, F.J.; Gil-Campos, M.; Perez-Navero, J.L. Comorbidities in childhood associated with extrauterine growth restriction in preterm infants: A scoping review. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2020, 179, 1255–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Clark, R.H.; Thomas, P.; Peabody, J. Extrauterine growth restriction remains a serious problem in prematurely born neonates. Pediatrics 2003, 111, 986–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Fabrizio, V.; Shabanova, V.; Taylor, S.N. Factors in Early Feeding Practices That May Influence Growth and the Challenges that Arise in Growth Outcomes Research. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Maiocco, G.; Migliaretti, G.; Cresi, F.; Peila, C.; Deantoni, S.; Trapani, B.; Giuliani, F.; Bertino, E.; Coscia, A. Evaluation of Extrauterine Head Growth from 14–21 days to Discharge with Longitudinal Intergrowth-21st Charts: A New Approach to Identify Very Preterm Infants at Risk of Long-Term Neurodevelopmental Impairment. Front. Pediatr. 2020, 8, 572930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Cresi, F.; Maggiora, E.; Borgione, S.M.; Spada, E.; Coscia, A.; Bertino, E.; Meneghin, F.; Corvaglia, L.T.; Ventura, M.L.; Lista, G. Enteral Nutrition Tolerance And REspiratory Support (ENTARES) Study in preterm infants: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2019, 20, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Bozzetti, V.; De Angelis, C.; Tagliabue, P.E. Nutritional approach to preterm infants on noninvasive ventilation: An update. Nutrition 2017, 37, 14–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Malkar, M.B.; Gardner, W.; Welty, S.E.; Jadcherla, S.R. Antecedent Predictors of Feeding Outcomes in Premature Infants with Protracted Mechanical Ventilation. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2015, 61, 591–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Gestational Hypertension and Preeclampsia: ACOG Practice Bulletin Summary, Number 222. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020, 135, e237–e260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fenton, T.R.; Kim, J.H. A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants. BMC Pediatr. 2013, 13, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Sweet, D.G.; Carnielli, V.; Greisen, G.; Hallman, M.; Ozek, E.; te Pas, A.; Plavka, R.; Roehr, C.C.; Saugstad, O.D.; Simeoni, U.; et al. European Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Respiratory Distress Syndrome—2019 Update. Neonatology 2019, 115, 432–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Gillam-Krakauer, M.; Reese, J. Diagnosis and Management of Patent Ductus Arteriosus. Neoreviews 2018, 19, e394–e402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Neu, J.; Walker, W.A. Necrotizing enterocolitis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011, 364, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Valdez Sandoval, P.; Hernandez Rosales, P.; Quinones Hernandez, D.G.; Chavana Naranjo, E.A.; Garcia Navarro, V. Intraventricular hemorrhage and posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus in preterm infants: Diagnosis, classification, and treatment options. Childs Nerv. Syst. 2019, 35, 917–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Deng, W.; Pleasure, J.; Pleasure, D. Progress in periventricular leukomalacia. Arch. Neurol. 2008, 65, 1291–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Jobe, A.H.; Bancalari, E. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2001, 163, 1723–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. American Academy of Pediatrics. Section on Ophthalmology. Screening examination of premature infants for retinopathy of prematurity. Pediatrics 2001, 108, 809–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Nutrients 14 01032 g001 550
Figure 1. The kmlShape clustering analysis characterizes the feeding trajectories based on the daily median volume of enteral intake (mL/kg/day) in the first 56 postnatal days as improving, and adverse patterns in infants at gestational age (GA) of 23–26 weeks (n = 183) (A), 27–28 weeks (n = 215) (B), and GA 29–30 weeks (n = 227) (C). The trajectory data are presented as the median and the 90th and 10th quantiles, and full feeding is defined as reaching 120 mL/kg/day.
Figure 1. The kmlShape clustering analysis characterizes the feeding trajectories based on the daily median volume of enteral intake (mL/kg/day) in the first 56 postnatal days as improving, and adverse patterns in infants at gestational age (GA) of 23–26 weeks (n = 183) (A), 27–28 weeks (n = 215) (B), and GA 29–30 weeks (n = 227) (C). The trajectory data are presented as the median and the 90th and 10th quantiles, and full feeding is defined as reaching 120 mL/kg/day.
Nutrients 14 01032 g001
Nutrients 14 01032 g002 550
Figure 2. Differences of the median enteral feeding volumes in the first 56 postnatal days of life between the improving pattern and the adverse pattern in infants at GA 23–26 weeks (A), 27–28 weeks (B), and GA 29–30 weeks (C). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Differences of the median enteral feeding volumes in the first 56 postnatal days of life between the improving pattern and the adverse pattern in infants at GA 23–26 weeks (A), 27–28 weeks (B), and GA 29–30 weeks (C). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Nutrients 14 01032 g002
Table
Table 1. Differences in the demographics, respiratory and hemodynamic morbidities, and GI morbidities between the improving feeding and adverse feeding patterns in each gestational age preterm group.
Table 1. Differences in the demographics, respiratory and hemodynamic morbidities, and GI morbidities between the improving feeding and adverse feeding patterns in each gestational age preterm group.
Preterm GroupGA 23–26 WeeksGA 27–28 WeeksGA 29–30 Weeks
Feeding TrajectoriesImprovingAdversepImprovingAdversepImprovingAdversep
Case number9489 17342 18839
Demographics
 Gestational age, mean (SD), weeks25.2 (1.0)24.7 (1.0)0.00127.6 (0.5)27.4 (0.5)0.02229.6 (0.5)29.4 (0.5)0.061
 Multiple gestation, n (%)31 (33)24 (27)0.46845 (26)18 (43)0.05059 (31)6 (15)0.069
 Preeclampsia, n (%)14 (15)15 (17)0.87332 (18)8 (19)1.00048 (26)18 (46)0.017
 5 min Apgar score <7, n (%)35 (38)35 (40)0.88723 (13)14 (33)0.00518 (10)2 (5)0.540
Respiratory/hemodynamic morbidities
 RDS requiring surfactant therapy, n (%)47 (50)48 (54)0.70154 (31)14 (33)0.93625 (13)7 (18)0.612
 Hypotension requiring vasopressors, n (%)66 (70)76 (85)0.02259 (34)29 (69)<0.00155 (29)11 (28)1.000
 cPVL, n (%)5 (5)9 (10)0.3474 (2)4 (10)0.0494 (2)1 (3)1.000
 hs-PDA requiring surgery, n (%)24 (26)38 (43)0.0226 (3)7 (17)0.0053 (2)0 (0)1.000
 Duration of IMV, median (Q1–Q3), days3 (0–14)13 (5–27)<0.0010 (0–2)2 (0–9)<0.0010 (0–0)0 (0–0)0.111
 Late-onset sepsis, n (%)15 (16)40 (45)<0.0015 (3)7 (17)0.0039 (5)3 (8)0.438
GI morbidities
 NEC stage 1, n (%)10 (11)12 (14)0.71615 (9)9 (21)0.0286 (3)19 (49)<0.001
 Severe NEC, n (%)6 (6)14 (16)0.0744 (2)9 (21)<0.0011 (1)7 (18)<0.001
 Non-NEC events requiring surgery, n (%) 4 (4)15 (17)0.0111 (1)7 (17)<0.0012 (1)1 (3)0.434
Severe BPD, n (%)47 (51)64 (72)0.00531 (18)13 (31)0.0966 (3%)3 (8)0.187
Severe ROP, n (%)21 (22)27 (30)0.2897 (4)5 (12)0.0612 (1%)1 (3)0.434
GA, gestational age; RDS, respiratory distress syndrome; cPVL, cystic periventricular leukomalacia; hs-PDA, hemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus; IMV, invasive mechanical ventilation; GI, gastrointestinal; NEC, necrotizing enterocolitis; non-NEC events requiring surgery included meconium ileus, spontaneous intestine perforation, volvulus and intestine adhesions; ROP, retinopathy of prematurity; BPD, bronchopulmonary dysplasia.
Table
Table 2. Multivariate logistic regression models for the odds ratios of the risks and morbidities related to the adverse feeding trajectory in infants in each gestational age preterm group.
Table 2. Multivariate logistic regression models for the odds ratios of the risks and morbidities related to the adverse feeding trajectory in infants in each gestational age preterm group.
Preterm GroupGA 23–26 weeksGA 27–28 weeksGA 29–30 weeks
OR (95% CI)pOR (95% CI)pOR (95% CI)p
Demographics
 Gestational age---0.817---0.222------
 Multiple gestation---------0.579---0.307
 Preeclampsia------------3.53 (1.25–9.99)0.013
 5 min Apgar score <7------2.60 (0.90–7.49)0.077------
Respiratory/hemodynamic/ morbidities
 Late-onset sepsis3.43 (1.64–7.19)0.00113.92 (3.51–55.26)<0.001------
 Hypotension requiring vasopressors---0.6922.17 (0.85–5.54)0.103------
 cPVL------11.93 (2.12–67.06)0.005------
 hs-PDA requiring surgery---0.3116.75 (1.41–32.46)0.017------
 Duration of IMV1.03 (1.01–1.06)0.007---0.2181.22 (1.07–1.39)0.004
GI morbidities
 NEC stage I------5.92 (1.84–19.08)0.00355.50 (17.19–179.3)<0.001
 Severe NEC2.18 (0.73–6.50)0.16326.20 (6.12–112.2)<0.001117.9 (12.2–1137)<0.001
 Non-NEC events requiring GI surgery5.21 (1.57–17.34)0.00737.01 (3.69–371.0)0.002------
GA, gestational age; cPVL, cystic periventricular leukomalacia; PDA, patent ductus arteriosus; NEC, necrotizing enterocolitis; GI, gastrointestinal; IMV, invasive mechanical ventilation; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Table
Table 3. Differences in the rates of EUGR in terms of body weight and head circumference between the two feeding patterns in infants in each gestational age preterm group.
Table 3. Differences in the rates of EUGR in terms of body weight and head circumference between the two feeding patterns in infants in each gestational age preterm group.
Preterm GroupGA 23–26 WeeksGA 27–28 WeeksGA 29–30 Weeks
Feeding TrajectoryImprovingAdversepImprovingAdversepImprovingAdversep
Enrolled numbers, n9489 17342 18839
Body weight
∆z, mean ± SD−0.91 ± 1.20−2.10 ± 0.96<0.001−0.23 ± 0.96−1.24 ± 1.15<0.0010.12 ± 0.92−0.44 ± 0.90<0.001
EUGR, n (%)46 (50)77 (88)<0.00136 (21)24 (57)<0.00120 (11)11 (30)0.007
Severe EUGR, n (%)14 (15)46 (52)<0.0015 (3)10 (24)<0.0012 (1)2 (5)0.135
Head circumference
∆z, mean ± SD−1.08 ± 1.30−2.00 ± 1.34<0.001−0.24 ± 1.04−1.23 ± 1.21<0.0010.15 ± 0.97−0.19 ± 1.010.054
EUGR, n (%)47 (51)73 (84)<0.00136 (21)24 (59)<0.00120 (11)7 (19)0.271
GA, gestational age; BWz, body weight z-score; EUGR, extrauterine growth restriction; SD, standard deviation; ∆z, z-scores of body weight or head circumference at term-equivalent age–z-scores of body weight or head circumference at birth; EUGR in body weight is defined as ∆z < −1; severe EUGR in body weight defined as ∆z < −2.
Table
Table 4. Adjusted odds ratios of extrauterine growth restriction in body weight and head circumference at term-equivalent age after the adverse feeding trajectory in infants across the three gestational age preterm groups.
Table 4. Adjusted odds ratios of extrauterine growth restriction in body weight and head circumference at term-equivalent age after the adverse feeding trajectory in infants across the three gestational age preterm groups.
Term Equivalent Age
∆z of Body Weight < −1∆z of Head Circumference < −1
Preterm GroupaOR95% CIpaOR95% CIp
GA 23–26 weeks7.313.34–15.99<0.0013.881.80–8.340.001
GA 27–28 weeks3.131.35–7.220.0083.331.41–7.850.006
GA 29–30 weeks4.021.58–10.220.0041.380.45–4.180.572
aOR, adjusted odds ratio—adjusted for demographics, risk factors and morbidities.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lin, Y.-C.; Chu, C.-H.; Chen, Y.-J.; Chen, R.-B.; Huang, C.-C. Gestational Age-Related Associations between Early-Life Feeding Trajectories and Growth Outcomes at Term Equivalent Age in Very Preterm Infants. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14051032

AMA Style

Lin Y-C, Chu C-H, Chen Y-J, Chen R-B, Huang C-C. Gestational Age-Related Associations between Early-Life Feeding Trajectories and Growth Outcomes at Term Equivalent Age in Very Preterm Infants. Nutrients. 2022; 14(5):1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14051032

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lin, Yung-Chieh, Chi-Hsiang Chu, Yen-Ju Chen, Ray-Bing Chen, and Chao-Ching Huang. 2022. "Gestational Age-Related Associations between Early-Life Feeding Trajectories and Growth Outcomes at Term Equivalent Age in Very Preterm Infants" Nutrients 14, no. 5: 1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14051032

APA Style

Lin, Y. -C., Chu, C. -H., Chen, Y. -J., Chen, R. -B., & Huang, C. -C. (2022). Gestational Age-Related Associations between Early-Life Feeding Trajectories and Growth Outcomes at Term Equivalent Age in Very Preterm Infants. Nutrients, 14(5), 1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14051032

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop