Archive for the ‘Breastfeeding’ Category

Milk from Mom: Effective in preventing common infant complication (NEC)

Thursday, May 19th, 2011

The debate among parents regarding the use of human milk vs. formula wages on, but according to a recent study, you can chalk one up for the human body.  That study, headed by the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, concluded that premature babies fed human donor milk were less likely to develop the intestinal condition necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).  Both sides has its advocates, willing to do battle at any time. When it comes to NEC, Mom’s milk has the decided advantage.

What is NEC?

Necrotizing enterocolitis. Never heard of it?  It is a frequent cause of mortality and morbidity in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. The condition is typically seen in premature infants, and the timing of its onset is generally inversely proportional to the gestational age of the baby at birth, i.e. the earlier a baby is born, the later the signs of NEC are typically seen.

Initial symptoms include feeding intolerance, increased gastric residuals, abdominal distension and bloody stools. Symptoms may progress rapidly to abdominal discoloration with intestinal perforation and peritonitis and systemic hypotension requiring intensive medical support.

The diagnosis is usually suspected clinically but often requires the aid of diagnostic imaging modalities. Radiographic signs of NEC include dilated bowel loops, paucity of gas, a “fixed loop” (unaltered gas-filled loop of bowel), pneumatosis intestinalis (gas cysts in the bowel wall), portal venous gas, and pneumoperitoneum (extraluminal or “free air” outside the bowel within the abdomen). The pathognomic finding on plain films is pneumatosis intestinalis . More recently ultrasonography has proven to be useful as it may detect signs and complications of NEC before they are evident on radiographs. Diagnosis is ultimately made in 5-10% of very low-birth-weight infants (<1,500g).

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI5UqLA_74

The role of human milk in both prevention and treatment of NEC has long been recognized. The familiar arguments, cost, inconvenience, etc., are largely inapplicable to the very low birth weight infant. Mothers of very low birth weight infants often experience insufficient milk production, resulting in mixed feedings of human milk and formula.  Moreover, medical complications often limit the volume of feeding these infants can be given.  The analysis shifts, therefore, with the new focus on the medical needs of the child and not simply on whether or not breast feeding is convenient for Mom or whether formula is too expensive for the household budget.

Human milk, whether mother’s own or from a donor, provides significant protection against many of the known risk factors of NEC as well as therapeutic protection for the infant recovering from NEC. The study shows that enteral feeding containing at least 50% human milk in the first 14 days of life was associated with a sixfold decrease in the odds of NEC.  The stark differences in the risk of NEC, its complications and the need for surgery between babies who receive human donor milk and those who get formula signal the need for a change in feeding practices across neonatal intensive care units,” said lead investigator Elizabeth Cristofalo, a neonatologist at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center.

Those numbers are encouraging, particularly for the vulnerable very low birth weight infant. In the absence of mother’s own milk, donor human milk could be life saving for fragile preterm infants, who are at the highest risk of developing NEC.  Undoubtedly the use of non-human milk (formula) remains an option that many parents may choose to exercise. The study, however, suggests that it is the inappropriate choice for some. I have a sneaking suspicion that they are not interested in participating in the human vs. non-human milk debate.

Question:  Have you made a decision about human vs. non-human milk?  Why did you choose one over the other?

 

Image courtesy of breastfeedingtechniques.com

Decreasing Obesity Risks in Children: Another Benefit of Breastfeeding

Friday, March 25th, 2011

Image from fooducate.com

In the United States today, one of the major health problems is obesity. The CDC reports that “[i]n 2009, only Colorado and the District of Columbia had a prevalence of obesity less than 20%.”  The number of both adults and children who are obese is huge and continues to rise dramatically.  The CDC website provides maps that show just how prevalent this problem is in our country. Particularly troubling is that “[t]hirty-three states had a prevalence equal to or greater than 25%; nine of these states (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia) had a prevalence of obesity equal to or greater than 30%).  This represents an enormous number of people in our country who are at risk for major health complications, such as “cardiovascular disease, certain types of cancer, and type 2 diabetes.”

While there has been an emphasis in our country on various ways to decrease these obesity statistics (including improving nutrition and increasing exercise), I wonder whether additional emphasis should be paid to children being given a great start to health. A recent article in the Baltimore Sun caught my attention. The article explains how diabetic moms, including those who had gestational diabetes during pregnancy but are not otherwise diabetic, are both more likely to give birth to a larger than average baby and also how their child is “more likely to become obese in childhood.”  The good news, the article explains, is that:

…a new study says that if you breastfeed your baby for at least six months, your child will be no more likely to put on weight than those whose moms are not diabetic.

This is just one more example of how breastfeeding for at least six months can dramatically improve your child’s chances of lifelong health.  Through breastfeeding alone, these moms can erase the increased risk that these children will become obese.

What they found appears to be a real advantage for breastfeeding: If the babies had been breastfed for six months or more, children born to diabetic moms looked nearly the same as the children of non-diabetic moms. And they were no more likely to be obese.

On the other hand, children who were breastfed for less than six months — and who had been exposed to diabetes in the womb — had significantly higher BMIs, thicker waists and stored more fat around their midsections than the other children in the study.

While I was excited to read about one more reason to support breastfeeding, I was concerned about whether this is a realistic choice for many families in our country.  Many moms who are committed to breastfeeding their children and who are successful at the start, do not continue breastfeeding for at least six months. The CDC Breastfeeding Report Card for 2010 says that “…3 out of every 4 new mothers in the United States now starts out breastfeeding… However, rates of breastfeeding at 6 and 12 months as well as rates of exclusive breastfeeding at 3 and 6 months remain stagnant and low.”  The national average is that while 75% of moms have breastfed, only 43% are breastfeeding at all at 6 months and only a mere 13.3% are exclusively breastfeeding at 6 months.  At 3 months, a time when infants would not have started solid food, only 33% of moms are still exclusively breastfeeding.  This means that there is a large drop off from what moms do when their babies are born and what they are doing by the time their babies reach 3 months.

However, the study about diabetes found that at least six months of breastfeeding was essential in protecting these kids from the increased risks of obesity. From both personal experience and anecdotal evidence, I suspect that many families are facing hard decisions about employment and breastfeeding. I suspect that a significant part of the large drop off between the numbers of moms’ breastfeeding at birth and those breastfeeding exclusively at 3 months has to do with employment. Given that the US lags so far behind other countries in paid parental leave, most moms have no choice but to go back to work full-time by the time their infants are 3 months (if not earlier).  Many moms face no choice at that point but to stop or severely limit breastfeeding, as few employers offer the time, space or scheduling to truly make moms successful at the difficult job of trying to pump while working.

I believe that the health care costs of treating individuals with obesity and all of the associated health problems should be examined against the costs of providing more complete support to new families.  What do you think?  Could employers better support breastfeeding in an attempt to increase the number of healthy children whose risks of obesity are lowered? Do you think that lack of paid leave or increased support in the workplace for breastfeeding is really the reason for decreased breastfeeding or are there other factors at play?