微稠液体防回流配方的有效性:时间、热量密度和冷藏对配方厚度的影响

K. McGrattan, Abigail Spoden, Abbey Sterkowitz, M. Gosa, Michael J Beckstrand, K. Hernandez
{"title":"微稠液体防回流配方的有效性:时间、热量密度和冷藏对配方厚度的影响","authors":"K. McGrattan, Abigail Spoden, Abbey Sterkowitz, M. Gosa, Michael J Beckstrand, K. Hernandez","doi":"10.21037/pm-21-44","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Advancements in neonatal medicine have resulted in an increased prevalence of infants suffering from swallowing deficits. One method to treat these deficits is to provide thickened liquids through the use of anti-reflux formulas. However, little is known regarding the impact of common clinical conditions such as time since mixing, caloric density, and refrigeration on the thickness of these anti-reflux formulas. The aim of the investigation was to test the effect of clinical variables on thickness of two commonly used U.S. anti-reflux formulas (Enfamil A.R.™ and Similac Spit-Up ® ) in their ready to feed and powder formulations. Methods: Thickness of two anti-reflux formulas (Enfamil A.R.™ and Similac Spit-Up ® ) was tested in their 20 kcal/oz ready to feed formulation and at graduated caloric densities of their powder formulations (20–30 kcal/oz). Thickness was determined using International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative (IDDSI) flow testing methodology and quantified as residual volume and thickness category (thin, slightly thick, mildly thick, moderately thick). Repeated-measures and two-way ANOVA was used to test the effect of formula variables on thickness. Results: Time after mixing did not impact thickness of 20 kcal/oz ready to feed formulations (Enfamil A.R.™, slightly thick, 1.3, 1.1–1.5 mL) (Similac Spit-Up ® , thin, 0.7, 0.4–0.8 mL) though it did for Enfamil A.R.™ powder formulations as characterized by an increase in thickness from thin to slightly thick over 30 minutes. Increasing caloric density of Enfamil A.R.™ caused a stepwise increase in thickness, with thicknesses ranging from slightly thick to moderately thick at the end of the 30-minute testing period across 20–30 kcal/oz formulations. Similac Spit-Up ® did not exhibit any change in thickness based on caloric density. Both Enfamil A.R.™ and Similac Spit-Up ® showed non-significant trends of increased thickness when tested cold after three hours of refrigeration, followed by thinning close to baseline values once the formula was re-heated. Conclusions: Although Enfamil A.R.™ is a valid slightly thick liquid option in its ready to feed formulation, the validity of its powder formulation to reach slightly thick designation is dependent on its caloric density. Future investigations examining the safety of this practice are warranted.","PeriodicalId":74411,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric medicine (Hong Kong, China)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity of anti-reflux formulas as a slightly thick liquid: effect of time, caloric density, and refrigerated storage on formula thickness\",\"authors\":\"K. McGrattan, Abigail Spoden, Abbey Sterkowitz, M. Gosa, Michael J Beckstrand, K. Hernandez\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/pm-21-44\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Advancements in neonatal medicine have resulted in an increased prevalence of infants suffering from swallowing deficits. One method to treat these deficits is to provide thickened liquids through the use of anti-reflux formulas. However, little is known regarding the impact of common clinical conditions such as time since mixing, caloric density, and refrigeration on the thickness of these anti-reflux formulas. The aim of the investigation was to test the effect of clinical variables on thickness of two commonly used U.S. anti-reflux formulas (Enfamil A.R.™ and Similac Spit-Up ® ) in their ready to feed and powder formulations. Methods: Thickness of two anti-reflux formulas (Enfamil A.R.™ and Similac Spit-Up ® ) was tested in their 20 kcal/oz ready to feed formulation and at graduated caloric densities of their powder formulations (20–30 kcal/oz). Thickness was determined using International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative (IDDSI) flow testing methodology and quantified as residual volume and thickness category (thin, slightly thick, mildly thick, moderately thick). Repeated-measures and two-way ANOVA was used to test the effect of formula variables on thickness. Results: Time after mixing did not impact thickness of 20 kcal/oz ready to feed formulations (Enfamil A.R.™, slightly thick, 1.3, 1.1–1.5 mL) (Similac Spit-Up ® , thin, 0.7, 0.4–0.8 mL) though it did for Enfamil A.R.™ powder formulations as characterized by an increase in thickness from thin to slightly thick over 30 minutes. Increasing caloric density of Enfamil A.R.™ caused a stepwise increase in thickness, with thicknesses ranging from slightly thick to moderately thick at the end of the 30-minute testing period across 20–30 kcal/oz formulations. Similac Spit-Up ® did not exhibit any change in thickness based on caloric density. Both Enfamil A.R.™ and Similac Spit-Up ® showed non-significant trends of increased thickness when tested cold after three hours of refrigeration, followed by thinning close to baseline values once the formula was re-heated. Conclusions: Although Enfamil A.R.™ is a valid slightly thick liquid option in its ready to feed formulation, the validity of its powder formulation to reach slightly thick designation is dependent on its caloric density. Future investigations examining the safety of this practice are warranted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric medicine (Hong Kong, China)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric medicine (Hong Kong, China)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/pm-21-44\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric medicine (Hong Kong, China)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/pm-21-44","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:新生儿医学的进步导致婴儿吞咽缺陷的患病率增加。治疗这些缺陷的一种方法是通过使用抗反流配方提供增稠液体。然而,关于常见临床条件(如混合后的时间、热量密度和冷藏)对这些抗反流配方奶粉厚度的影响,我们知之甚少。本研究的目的是测试临床变量对两种常用美国抗反流配方奶粉(Enfamil A.R。™ 和Similac Spit Up®)。方法:两种抗反流配方奶粉(Enfamil A.R。™ 和Similac Spit Up®)在其20千卡/盎司的即食配方和粉末配方的分级热量密度(20-30千卡/oz)下进行了测试。使用国际吞咽困难饮食标准化倡议(IDDSI)流动测试方法测定厚度,并将其量化为残余体积和厚度类别(薄、稍厚、轻度厚、中度厚)。使用重复测量和双向方差分析来检验公式变量对厚度的影响。结果:混合后的时间不会影响20 kcal/oz即食配方奶粉的厚度(Enfamil A.R。™, 稍厚,1.3,1.1–1.5 mL)(Similac Spit Up®,薄,0.7,0.4–0.8 mL),尽管Enfamil A.R。™ 粉末制剂,其特征在于在30分钟内厚度从薄增加到稍厚。Enfamil A.R.不断增加的热量密度。™ 导致厚度逐步增加,在20–30 kcal/oz配方的30分钟测试期结束时,厚度从略厚到中等厚不等。Similac Spit Up®没有显示出基于热量密度的任何厚度变化。Enfamil A.R。™ Similac Spit Up®在冷藏三小时后冷态测试时显示出厚度增加的不显著趋势,随后在配方奶粉重新加热后变薄至接近基线值。结论:尽管安婴儿A.R。™ 在其即食配方中是一种有效的微稠液体选择,其粉末配方达到微稠指定的有效性取决于其热量密度。今后有必要对这种做法的安全性进行调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validity of anti-reflux formulas as a slightly thick liquid: effect of time, caloric density, and refrigerated storage on formula thickness
Background: Advancements in neonatal medicine have resulted in an increased prevalence of infants suffering from swallowing deficits. One method to treat these deficits is to provide thickened liquids through the use of anti-reflux formulas. However, little is known regarding the impact of common clinical conditions such as time since mixing, caloric density, and refrigeration on the thickness of these anti-reflux formulas. The aim of the investigation was to test the effect of clinical variables on thickness of two commonly used U.S. anti-reflux formulas (Enfamil A.R.™ and Similac Spit-Up ® ) in their ready to feed and powder formulations. Methods: Thickness of two anti-reflux formulas (Enfamil A.R.™ and Similac Spit-Up ® ) was tested in their 20 kcal/oz ready to feed formulation and at graduated caloric densities of their powder formulations (20–30 kcal/oz). Thickness was determined using International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative (IDDSI) flow testing methodology and quantified as residual volume and thickness category (thin, slightly thick, mildly thick, moderately thick). Repeated-measures and two-way ANOVA was used to test the effect of formula variables on thickness. Results: Time after mixing did not impact thickness of 20 kcal/oz ready to feed formulations (Enfamil A.R.™, slightly thick, 1.3, 1.1–1.5 mL) (Similac Spit-Up ® , thin, 0.7, 0.4–0.8 mL) though it did for Enfamil A.R.™ powder formulations as characterized by an increase in thickness from thin to slightly thick over 30 minutes. Increasing caloric density of Enfamil A.R.™ caused a stepwise increase in thickness, with thicknesses ranging from slightly thick to moderately thick at the end of the 30-minute testing period across 20–30 kcal/oz formulations. Similac Spit-Up ® did not exhibit any change in thickness based on caloric density. Both Enfamil A.R.™ and Similac Spit-Up ® showed non-significant trends of increased thickness when tested cold after three hours of refrigeration, followed by thinning close to baseline values once the formula was re-heated. Conclusions: Although Enfamil A.R.™ is a valid slightly thick liquid option in its ready to feed formulation, the validity of its powder formulation to reach slightly thick designation is dependent on its caloric density. Future investigations examining the safety of this practice are warranted.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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