4.3 Article

A Thickened Formula Does Not Reduce Apneas Related to Gastroesophageal Reflux in Preterm Infants

Journal

NEONATOLOGY
Volume 103, Issue 2, Pages 98-102

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000342703

Keywords

Preterm infants; Gastroesophageal reflux; Apnea of prematurity; pH-impedance monitoring; Polysomnography

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Apnea of prematurity (AOP) occurs frequently in preterm infants and a variable proportion of AOP can be induced by gastroesophageal reflux (GER). Conservative treatment, including dietary modifications, should be the first-line approach for both GER and GER-related apneas in this population. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of a starch-thickened preterm formula (PF) in reducing the frequency of apneas related to GER. Methods: Preterm infants with AOP were studied by combined impedance and pH monitoring and polysomnography. The 6-hour study period included two feeds, one of a commercially available PF and one of the same formula thickened with amylopectin (TPF). GER indexes, apneas and GER-related apneas detected after TPF and PF feeds were compared by Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: 24 infants were studied. During 140 h of registration, 289 apneas (147 after TPF and 142 after PF; p = 0.876), and 861 GER episodes (400 after TPF and 461 after PF; p = 0.465) were recorded. No difference in the number of AOP was found between TPF and PF. A significant reduction in acid exposure was found after TPF; there was no influence on non-acid GER indexes. The frequency of GER-related apneas did not differ between TPF and PF. Conclusions: A formula thickened with amylopectin did not reduce the number of AOP or GER-related apneas. It reduced acid GER features but had no effect on non-acid GER indexes. Future research should focus on exploring different conservative strategies to treat GER-related apneas in preterm infants. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available