A Systemic Review of the Difference Between Diets for Preterm Infants Containing Raw Mother's Own Milk and Frozen or Pasteurized Mother's Own Milk.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Journal of Human Lactation Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-08 DOI:10.1177/08903344241227941
Jessica Ann Gomez, Karla Abela, Geri LoBiondo-Wood
{"title":"A Systemic Review of the Difference Between Diets for Preterm Infants Containing Raw Mother's Own Milk and Frozen or Pasteurized Mother's Own Milk.","authors":"Jessica Ann Gomez, Karla Abela, Geri LoBiondo-Wood","doi":"10.1177/08903344241227941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Raw, never stored or pasteurized mother's own milk (MOM) is not always available to feed preterm infants; however, storage and pasteurization of MOM diminishes some bioactive components. It can be difficult to feed raw MOM to preterm infants due to transportation and storage of small volumes that might be pumped away from the infant, and a concern that they might harbor bacteria. However, the higher availability of bioactive components in raw MOM may provide benefits to preterm infants compared to frozen or pasteurized MOM.</p><p><strong>Research aim: </strong>To systematically review and summarize the results of studies on feeding raw MOM versus frozen or pasteurized MOM to preterm infants born at less than 37 weeks of gestation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four databases were searched (Cochrane, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science) for this systematic review. Of 542 studies identified, nine met inclusion criteria and were critically evaluated using the quality assessment tool for quantitative studies by the Effective Public Health Practice Project. Studies were organized using the Breastfeeding Challenges Facing Preterm Mother-Infant Dyads theoretical framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Included studies evaluated the outcomes of preterm infants fed raw versus pasteurized MOM (<i>n</i> = 7, 77.8%) or raw versus frozen MOM (<i>n</i> = 2, 22.2%). Researchers found that raw MOM did not increase infant infections and may have improved health and growth outcomes for study participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is laboratory evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of the use of raw MOM for preterm infants. A raw MOM diet is recommended for preterm infants by professional organizations. Despite this, it may not be universally prioritized and could require purposeful implementation by each institution. Further research is needed to pursue the potential benefits of a raw MOM diet for preterm infants.</p>","PeriodicalId":15948,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Lactation","volume":" ","pages":"259-269"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Lactation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08903344241227941","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Raw, never stored or pasteurized mother's own milk (MOM) is not always available to feed preterm infants; however, storage and pasteurization of MOM diminishes some bioactive components. It can be difficult to feed raw MOM to preterm infants due to transportation and storage of small volumes that might be pumped away from the infant, and a concern that they might harbor bacteria. However, the higher availability of bioactive components in raw MOM may provide benefits to preterm infants compared to frozen or pasteurized MOM.

Research aim: To systematically review and summarize the results of studies on feeding raw MOM versus frozen or pasteurized MOM to preterm infants born at less than 37 weeks of gestation.

Methods: Four databases were searched (Cochrane, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science) for this systematic review. Of 542 studies identified, nine met inclusion criteria and were critically evaluated using the quality assessment tool for quantitative studies by the Effective Public Health Practice Project. Studies were organized using the Breastfeeding Challenges Facing Preterm Mother-Infant Dyads theoretical framework.

Results: Included studies evaluated the outcomes of preterm infants fed raw versus pasteurized MOM (n = 7, 77.8%) or raw versus frozen MOM (n = 2, 22.2%). Researchers found that raw MOM did not increase infant infections and may have improved health and growth outcomes for study participants.

Conclusion: There is laboratory evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of the use of raw MOM for preterm infants. A raw MOM diet is recommended for preterm infants by professional organizations. Despite this, it may not be universally prioritized and could require purposeful implementation by each institution. Further research is needed to pursue the potential benefits of a raw MOM diet for preterm infants.

早产儿膳食中母乳含量与冷冻或巴氏杀菌母乳含量之间差异的系统回顾。
背景:早产儿并非总能喝到未经储存或巴氏消毒的生母乳(MOM);然而,MOM 的储存和巴氏消毒会减少某些生物活性成分。给早产儿喂食未煮沸的母乳可能会有困难,因为运输和储存的母乳量较小,可能会从婴儿身边抽走,而且还担心母乳中会滋生细菌。然而,与冷冻或巴氏杀菌的口腔健康食品相比,生口腔健康食品中生物活性成分的可用性更高,可能会给早产儿带来益处。研究目的:系统回顾并总结有关给妊娠不足 37 周的早产儿喂食生口腔健康食品与冷冻或巴氏杀菌的口腔健康食品的研究结果:本系统综述检索了四个数据库(Cochrane、Embase、Ovid MEDLINE 和 Web of Science)。在确定的 542 项研究中,有 9 项符合纳入标准,并使用有效公共卫生实践项目的定量研究质量评估工具进行了严格评估。研究采用早产儿母婴二人组面临的母乳喂养挑战理论框架进行组织:所纳入的研究评估了早产儿生喂与巴氏灭菌母乳(7 项,占 77.8%)或生喂与冷冻母乳(2 项,占 22.2%)的结果。研究人员发现,生食口含乳制品不会增加婴儿感染,并可能改善研究参与者的健康和生长结果:有实验室证据支持早产儿使用生鲜乳制品的安全性和有效性。专业组织推荐早产儿食用生鲜乳制品。尽管如此,它可能并没有被普遍优先考虑,可能需要每个机构有目的地实施。我们需要进一步研究生食母奶对早产儿的潜在益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Human Lactation
Journal of Human Lactation 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
11.50%
发文量
100
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Committed to the promotion of diversity and equity in all our policies and practices, our aims are: To provide our readers and the international communities of clinicians, educators and scholars working in the field of lactation with current and quality-based evidence, from a broad array of disciplines, including the medical sciences, basic sciences, social sciences and the humanities. To provide student and novice researchers, as well as, researchers whose native language is not English, with expert editorial guidance while preparing their work for publication in JHL. In each issue, the Journal of Human Lactation publishes original research, original theoretical and conceptual articles, discussions of policy and practice issues, and the following special features: Advocacy: A column that discusses a ‘hot’ topic in lactation advocacy About Research: A column focused on an in-depth discussion of a different research topic each issue Lactation Newsmakers: An interview with a widely-recognized outstanding expert in the field from around the globe Research Commentary: A brief discussion of the issues raised in a specific research article published in the current issue Book review(s): Reviews written by content experts about relevant new publications International News Briefs: From major international lactation organizations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信