4.7 Article

Inadequate Content of Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) of Donor Human Milk for Feeding Preterm Infants: A Comparison with Mother's Own Milk at Different Stages of Lactation

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13041300

关键词

donor human milk; preterm infants; docosahexaenoic acid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A single-center study compared the fatty acids profile, particularly DHA levels, in donor human milk and mother's own milk for preterm infants. The study found that DHA levels were significantly lower in donor human milk compared to mother's own milk, potentially providing inadequate supply of DHA for preterm infants.
A cross-sectional single-center study was designed to compare the fatty acids profile, particularly docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) levels, between milk banking samples of donor human milk and mother's own milk (MOM) for feeding preterm infants born before 32 weeks' gestation. MOM samples from 118 mothers included colostrum (1-7 days after delivery), transitional milk (9-14 days), and mature milk (15-28 days and >= 29 days). In the n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) group, the levels of alpha-linolenic acid (C18:3 n3) and DHA (C22:6 n3) showed opposite trends, whereas alpha-linolenic acid was higher in donor human milk as compared with MOM, with increasing levels as stages of lactation progressed, DHA levels were significantly lower in donor human milk than in MOM samples, which, in turn, showed decreasing levels along stages of lactation. DHA levels in donor human milk were 53% lower than in colostrum. Therefore, in preterm infants born before 32 weeks' gestation, the use of pasteurized donor human milk as exclusive feeding or combined with breastfeeding provides an inadequate supply of DHA. Nursing mothers should increase DHA intake through fish consumption or nutritional supplements with high-dose DHA while breastfeeding. Milk banking fortified with DHA would guarantee adequate DHA levels in donor human milk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据