Advertisement

Current Pediatrics Reports

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 255–263 | Cite as

Impact of Feeding and Medical Practices on the Development of Necrotizing Enterocolitis

  • Brian L. Montenegro
  • Camilia R. MartinEmail author
Neonatology (F Greer, Section Editor)

Abstract

A single, unifying mechanism explaining the cause of necrotizing enterocolitis has remained elusive. It is unlikely that one precipitating cause will be found. However, it is increasingly evident that common risk factors do exist such as intestinal immaturity, dysbiosis, and feeding (including type of feeding). Modifying these risk factors to facilitate optimal postnatal intestinal development may lessen the vulnerability to intestinal injury in the preterm infant. Understanding the feeding and medical practices employed in the neonatal intensive care unit and their potential effects on postnatal intestinal development will begin to inform bedside strategies to reduce maladaptive intestinal responses in the preterm infant and the risk of this devastating disease.

Keywords

Necrotizing enterocolitis Immunonutrients Fatty acids Microbiome Digestion Feeding practices 

Introduction

Prematurity and enteral feeding are universally accepted risk factors for neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) [1••]. Despite an appreciation of these associations, the precise mechanisms by which these factors contribute to the pathogenesis of NEC have remained elusive. As a result, there has been little change in the prevalence of NEC, which varies among centers, affecting anywhere from 5 to 15 % of very low birth weight infants [2]. Advances in neonatal care have nonetheless been plentiful including a growing understanding of the importance of breast milk in supporting development and lowering disease incidence [3•]. In theory then, increasing rates of breast milk utilization in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) should have resulted in decreasing rates of NEC; however, the change in incidence has been minimal to date [2, 4]. It is likely that the prevention of adverse neonatal outcomes, like necrotizing enterocolitis, will not be realized by applying a single theory or by discovering a silver bullet, but rather from a deeper understanding of the interplay between prematurity, intestinal development, immunity, and nutritional support.

Normal Intestinal Development and Immune Ontogeny

During in utero development, the fetus swallows a complex matrix of immunomodulating biologic factors that are present in the amniotic fluid. These factors interact with the developing gut and its associated immune effectors to prepare the fetus for ex utero life. When fully mature, the gut is primarily responsible for nutrient digestion and absorption, and is an active participant in the immune system. Exposure to antigens in utero, via interface with the amniotic fluid, activates already present antigen-presenting cells. This ongoing sensitization during fetal life leads to processes of immunotolerance and immunodeviation that collectively can be referred as immunomodulation [5]. By this process, the fetal gut begins to learn to discriminate between pathogenic antigens, to which an inflammatory response is warranted, and beneficial antigens that should be tolerated.

The interface between the immature gut and the environment is immediately challenged following birth. Modulators of postnatal intestinal health predominantly involve a complex interaction between nutrient exposure and microbial colonization. The effect of breast milk, the preferred enteral substrate for infants, on gut development serves as a prime example of this interaction. Although breast milk is a primary source of macro- and micro-nutrients to support growth, it is also a complex biologic system with direct influences on structure and function of the gastrointestinal tract, the intestinal microbiome, and consequently downstream intestinal gene expression [6•]. Cytokines such as transforming growth factor beta (TGFβ) present in breast milk modulate the inflammatory response, while secretory IgA protects against pathogenic bacteria. Additionally, oligosaccharides, which can behave as prebiotics, influence the composition of the gut microbiome by providing substrate for the production of short-chain fatty acids with resulting proliferation of Bifidobacteria and Lactobacillus [7•]. When fully mature, the gastrointestinal tract and its associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) accounts for 70 % of the entire immune system [5].

Disrupted Intestinal Development with Premature Delivery

Premature delivery results in altered organ development—the arrest of normal developmental processes that would have continued if the premature infant had remained in utero and in abnormal adaptive processes in response to their NICU environment (e.g., feeding/nutritional practices; medication exposures; altered biochemical homeostasis such as hypoglycemia, acidosis, hypoxia; and exposure to the hospital’s indigenous pathogenic organisms). While the importance of human milk delivery and the intestinal microbiome on gut development are discussed elsewhere, other factors that are also influential to gut development and can be potentially addressed through modified bedside practices include: (1) inadequate postnatal provision of immunonutrients after premature delivery; (2) absent or minimal enteral substrate delivery early in the postnatal period; (3) exposure to medications that influence gut development; and (4) delivery of nutritional ingredients that may be inadequately processed by the immature, developing gut (Fig. 1). An understanding of these premises may begin to form the basis to modify clinical bedside practices and develop a “package of care” that optimizes postnatal intestinal development and minimizes the vulnerability to NEC.
Fig. 1

Maladaptive gut development in the preterm infant

Cessation of Immunonutrient Transfer with Premature Delivery and Inadequate Postnatal Provision

Prior to birth, nutrients are primarily provided to the fetus by way of the placenta and by swallowed amniotic fluid that additionally accounts for approximately 10–20 % of fetal energy demands [8]. Proteomic analysis of amniotic fluid revealed the presence of a complex mixture of biologic molecules including immunoglobulins, complement C3, fibronectin, vasoactive endothelial growth factor, vitamin D-binding protein, and antithrombin [9]. Thus, while in utero, the fetal gut is continuously exposed to a dynamic fluid mixture, the components of which play important roles in immunity, growth, nutrition, and organ development. An abrupt cessation of exposure to this milieu in the setting of preterm birth has critical implications on continued development, including overall gastrointestinal health and the risk of local (NEC) and systemic disease.

Ideally parenteral and enteral nutrition should mimic in utero exposure to nutrients previously provided by amniotic fluid and the placenta; however, current nutritional practices fall short of this ideal for many critical biologic factors. Barriers to adequate postnatal provision include a limited understanding of the fetal accretion rates or exposure levels in utero; definitions of clinically meaningful endpoints whether it is a final disease state, modification of a specific mechanistic pathway, or promotion of optimal organogenesis or immune ontogeny; and finally the biologically significant levels after early birth to achieve those endpoints. A brief review of a few of these nutrients illustrates these principles.

Glutamine and Arginine

Glutamine is essential for energy production within intestinal tissue and also enhances the functional parameters of immune cells including macrophages, T cell proliferation, and B-lymphocyte differentiation [10]. In a study of premature infants who went on to develop NEC, lower serum levels of glutamine and arginine were found 7 days prior to disease onset compared to the control group [11]. Whether these changes can be ascribed to inadequate exogenous provision or absorption, low endogenous production, or increased utilization in the setting of intestinal pathology could not be answered, but the importance of these amino acids are nonetheless highlighted especially when considering their role in the pathways of health and disease. A Cochrane review of glutamine supplementation in preterm infants cited a lack of sufficient evidence to recommend supplementation. However, the data on enteral administration did result in a decreased rate of invasive infection and decreased time to attain full enteral feedings [12], both clinically meaningful outcomes and possibly along the causal pathway to NEC. As a result, further exploration of glutamine is warranted as route, dosing and desirable target levels all remain undefined.

Arginine also plays an essential role in immune function as a precursor to nitric oxide production. Inhibition of nitric oxide synthesis in a feline model of ischemia–reperfusion increased intestinal damage, while infusion of the precursor arginine attenuated injury in a piglet model of NEC [13, 14]. In a double-blind placebo-controlled study done by Amin et al., 152 premature infants <1,250 g and <32 weeks gestational age were randomized to arginine supplementation or placebo. NEC (Bell Stage II or greater) developed in 6.7 % of the supplemented group versus 16.9 % in the placebo group. However, this reduction in NEC incidence did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.077) likely given the small sample size [15]. More importantly, arginine supplementation significantly reduced all stages of NEC, including suspected but not confirmed NEC—a clinically meaning outcome given the high rates of feeding intolerance in this population and the medical interventions associated with suspected NEC (suspension of feeding, radiographs, and antibiotic exposure). Thus, an outcome of improving overall health may be just as important as attenuating the disease itself.

Long-Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (LCPUFAs)

Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids are some of the most studied immunonutrients in neonatology. LCPUFAs are biomagnified from mother to fetus to enhance maturation and growth of mainly the brain and eye. Largely due to a lack of appropriate postnatal delivery of LCPUFAs, the preterm infant rapidly undergoes changes in the absolute level and ratios of these critical fatty acids. In a retrospective cohort study of 88 infants born <30 weeks of gestation, decreased levels of the LCPUFAs docosahexaeonic (DHA) and arachidonic acids (AA) were demonstrated within the first postnatal week. Additionally, there was an almost threefold increase in the absolute level of linoleic acid and concomitantly the n6:n3 LCPUFA ratio. The changes in fatty acid levels were associated with an increased risk of chronic lung disease and late-onset sepsis [16•].

Despite the known importance of LCPUFAs on fetal development, postnatal enteral supplementation either as DHA alone or DHA and AA in formula has had somewhat disappointing results with no to minimal benefit in health status and long-term neurodevelopment [17].

An understanding of the postnatal transition of these fatty acids as described above in context of the common feeding practices in the extremely preterm infant may explain the limited response to supplemental DHA and AA. Studied supplemental strategies began with the attainment of a certain volume of enteral feedings. By this time, a deficit of LCPUFAs is already established, and the amount supplemented is below the estimated fetal accretion rates such that an ongoing, chronic deficit of these fatty acids is inevitable [18].

As with glutamine, arginine and many other immunonutrients, the precise means for delivery, timing and dosing of LCPUFAs need to be explored further to identify the potential benefits in attenuating disease as well as promoting heath. The pleiotropic effects of fatty acids in organogenesis, immune ontogeny, angiogenesis, and regulation of inflammation [19, 20, 21, 22••] underscore why we must understand how to best prevent the postnatal alterations of these fatty acids early after premature delivery. An understanding of the fetal to postnatal changes in exposure to important biologic factors, such as LCPUFAs, in the preterm infant has important implications on normal development as well as disease pathogenesis.

Minimal Enteral Substrate in the Early Postnatal Period

A concern over potential deleterious side effects of enteral feedings in the critically ill preterm infant often results in delayed initiation of enteral feedings, especially among very low birth weight infants. A web-based survey in 2010 of 127 tertiary NICUs in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the UK revealed that the proportion of units initiating enteral feeding within the first 24 h of life was 35 % for infants born at less than 25 weeks gestation and 43 % for those born between 25 and 27 weeks gestation [23]. Commonly stated clinical concerns that form the rationale to withhold feedings are often not evidence based. According to a survey of 24 Australian neonatal intensive unit directors of tertiary perinatal centers, reasons stated for withholding feedings included intrauterine growth restriction, absent or reversed end diastolic flow, inotropes, umbilical artery catheters, a significant patent ductus arteriosus and bile-stained aspirates [24•]. Gastric residuals, for example, are not associated with an increased risk of NEC in extremely low birth weight infants [25]. Although retrospective studies have reported an association between a PDA and NEC, a large multicenter trial by the NICHD failed to show an association between PDAs and NEC in extremely low birth weight infants [26, 27]. Furthermore, many clinicians are hesitant to feed infants during the treatment of a PDA with cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors such as indomethacin and ibuprofen given concerns over decreased intestinal blood flow. However, a prospective randomized study including 177 very low birth weight infants treated with COX inhibitors failed to show an increased incidence of NEC in those fed trophic feedings. Rather, a decreased time to attain full feedings was found in those infants receiving trophic feedings while receiving indomethacin or ibuprofen compared to infants who were made NPO [28•]. Review of available literature highlights the paucity of data that exists to justify withholding of feedings for the other aforementioned reasons of intrauterine growth restriction, absent or reversed diastolic flow, inotropes, and the presence of umbilical artery catheters [29, 30, 31, 32, 33]. Taken together and in the setting of what is now known about the ramifications of withholding enteral feedings, the current level of evidence favors a more liberal approach to feeding.

A delay in enteral feeding may potentiate undesirable consequences in postnatal gut development. In newborn animal models, significant mucosal atrophy is observed within 3 days of TPN and no enteral substrate in rats, [34] with similar findings in a piglet model. In neonatal piglets, nutritional support with TPN alone with no enteral substrate led to decreased jejunal mass, villus height, and crypt depth within 1–2 days of TPN. Concurrently, increased rates of villous and crypt epithelial cell apoptosis was demonstrated [35]. Conversely, the provision of minimal enteral feedings in neonatal dog and pig models has been associated with improved gut motility and activity of digestive enzymes [36, 37]. The preterm infant’s response to enteral food intake also demonstrates an adaptive physiological response such as improved intestinal blood flow and increased production of gut regulatory peptides (e.g., motilin, gastrin, neurotensin, and enteroglucagon) that promote continued gastrointestinal development that would otherwise be disturbed in the absence of an enteral substrate [38].

Delayed Provision of Enteral Feeding

There is very likely a beneficial adaptive gut response to enteral feedings in the preterm infant. A delay in feeding could disrupt this process and lead to maladaptive intestinal consequences. A key component in maximizing the benefit of enteral feedings is to provide the exposure early. As stated above, a delay of only 2–3 days results in morphological changes in the gut in neonatal animal models and is accompanied by physiological modification in blood flow, enzyme production, and nutrient metabolism. In addition, the full benefit of immunonutrients in the neonatal diet may be optimal when given earlier, before other maladaptive processes dominate. An example of this interplay is illustrated in a recent study examining the protective effect of human milk oligosaccharides (HMO) for NEC. HMOs behave as prebiotics and antimicrobials in addition to possibly modulating immune function [39, 40]. In a rodent model of NEC, formula feedings with an HMO protected against NEC demonstrating intestinal pathology scores no different from those observed from the dam-fed group. If the introduction of the HMO was delayed to after the first 24 h or was truncated to only the first 24 h the protective effect of the HMO was lost. Thus, early and continuous exposure was necessary for the full protective effect to be realized [41••]. This underscores the importance of both early initiation and continuous exposure of immunonutrients for optimal physiological benefit.

The Practice of Enteral Feeding

The safety of early initiation of feedings is supported by several Cochrane-based reviews that address relevant issues of early trophic feeding, delayed (≥5–7 days) versus early (≤4 days) feeding, and slow (15–20 ml/kg/day) versus fast (30–35 ml/kg/day) advancement [42, 43, 44]. In summary, early feeding and fast advancement of enteral feedings were not associated with an increased risk of NEC and instead resulted in decreased time to attain full feedings [45••] (Table 1). The generalizability of this data to extremely lower birth weight infants is limited given a relatively small number of such infants included in these studies. Additional studies are ongoing that will help answer these questions in the extremely low birth weight cohort. However, early retrospective data do suggest that early initiation and fast advancement are safe for the smaller, more immature infant. In a recently published retrospective study of very low birth weight infants conducted after an unit policy change to promote early enteral feeding, infants who were fed at a median age of 14 h of life demonstrated a trend toward a decreased NEC incidence compared to infants fed at a median age of 33 h of life [46]. Furthermore, standardized feeding protocols that highlight the importance of early initiation of enteral feedings are likely to provide benefit even to the most extreme of premature infants [47].
Table 1

Feeding strategy and neonatal outcomes

Feeding strategy

Increased risk of NEC

Time to full feedings

Early trophic feeding “small volumes of milk (typically 12–24 ml/kg/day) without advancing the feed volumes during the first five to seven postnatal days”

No

No difference

Delayed (≥5–7 days) versus early (≤4 days) introduction and progressive

No

Longer in delayed group

Slow (15–20 mL/kg/day) versus fast (30–35 mL/kg/day) advancement

No

Longer to regain birth weight and attain full feedings in slow group

Adapted from SIFT Investigators Group. Early enteral feeding strategies for very preterm infants: current evidence from Cochrane reviews [45]

Exposure to Gut-Altering Medications

Undeniably the care of the very low birth weight infant necessitates the use of medications for preventative or treatment purposes. Nevertheless, it is also well known that the use of medications in the NICU may result in known and unknown side effects. There has been an increasing appreciation of how medications may have specific gastrointestinal implications that interfere with gut development. A specific look at the potential consequences of antibiotics and acid blockers in the establishment of the gut microbiome and subsequent risk of intestinal injury illustrates this concept well.

The intestinal microbiome of the preterm infant is altered significantly from the term breast-fed infant due to multiple unique biologically inherent and environmental exposures [49]. The establishment of an intestinal microbiome after birth is critical for the continued development of the intestinal tract and the immune system. It has been hypothesized that this dysbiosis in the intestinal microbiome is a major contributor to the risk of NEC [50]. Recent work has identified altered proportions of Firmicutes, Bacteroides, and Proteobacteria in the GI tract of premature infants. In patients with NEC, a “blooming of Proteobacteria” and reduced microbial diversity have been observed [51, 52, 53].

Few infants, especially those of very low birth weight, reside in the NICU without a course of antibiotics. In fact, antibiotics are the most commonly prescribed medication in the NICU [48]. Concerns over impaired immunity in the premature infant and high a rate of mortality among premature infants with invasive bacterial infections are potential reasons for this practice. Antibiotics play a role in contributing to the increased risk of NEC possibly by exacerbating the postnatal dysbiosis in the preterm infant. A large review of empiric antibiotic exposure within the first 48 h among extremely low birth weight infants demonstrated a trend toward an increased risk of NEC with prolonged antibiotic exposure ≥5 days (OR: 1.21 [95 % CI: 0.98–1.51]) [54]. This trend was even more pronounced when prolonged antibiotic exposure was defined as ≥4 days (OR: 1.34 [95 % CI: 1.04–1.73]). Multivariate logistic regression analysis attempted to correct for identifiable risk factors associated with sicker infants and prolonged antibiotic exposure; however, the increased risk of NEC after a prolonged course of antibiotics remained increased compared to infants who did not receive a prolonged course of antibiotics.

Of additional concern is the lack of rationale in providing a prolonged course of antibiotics that will lead to difficulty in modifying this potential harmful practice. Cordero and Ayers investigated the determinants that defined the duration of empiric antibiotic use for suspected early onset sepsis in extremely low birth weight infants utilizing the Clinical Risk Index for Babies (CRIB). They found no difference in CRIB scores for infants with sterile cultures who received <3 days versus >7 days of antibiotics [55]. This suggests that the length of an antibiotic course may be provider and/or institutional dependent rather than related to illness severity. The practice of frequently indiscriminate antibiotic administration is concerning given an incidence of less than 2 % of early onset sepsis in very low birth weight infants [56]. The use of a predictive model for neonatal sepsis might serve to guide antibiotic utilization via a targeted approach that maximizes benefit while minimizing potential unintended consequences [57].

Similar to antibiotic exposure, the use of acid blockers also plays a role in increasing the risk of NEC presumably by altering the intestinal microbiome. Several case control studies have found H2-blocker use to be associated with higher rates of NEC in very low birth weight infants [58, 59]. Terrin et al. found a 6.6-fold higher rate of NEC in ranitidine-treated very low birth weight infants in addition to significantly higher rates of mortality and prolonged hospitalization [58]. The indication for antacid use is an important potential confounding factor as H2-blockers may be more utilized in sicker infants; however, even after adjustment for these factors, the relationship between the use of H2-blockers and NEC persists.

Available data support the role of gastrointestinal pH in the development of NEC. For example, a prospective double-blind study comparing infants supplemented with 0.01–0.02 ml of 1 N HCl/ml of milk versus a similar volume with water found a significantly reduced incidence of NEC [60]. Additionally, comparative stool analysis of preterm infants on H2-blocker therapy noted a shift toward lower microbial diversity and an abundance of Proteobacteria [61], a shift that has been implicated in the development of NEC. Lastly, part of the protective effect of breast milk in the development of NEC may be explained by its poor buffering capacity relative to formula. This results in a lower colonic pH in breast-fed infants and a microbial flora with relatively increased quantities of Lactobacilli and Bifidobacterium. Gastrointestinal acidity and disturbances to gastric pH via H2-blocker therapy or formula feeding likely play critical roles in host defense, dysbiosis, and pathogenesis of NEC. Of general concern is the absence of evidence for use of antacids in NICUs. A clear benefit to antacid use in the preterm population has not been established. In fact, the literature has supported the lack of improvement or benefit for neonates receiving H2-blockers [62, 63, 64, 65].

Nutritional Ingredients Inadequately Processed by the Immature Gut

The digestive capabilities of the premature gut are limited due to the reduced production of important digestive enzymes. In one example, the immature pancreas produces limited amounts of lipase at birth with levels still below adult levels until at least 6 months of age [66]. However, lactating maternal mammary glands secrete bile salt-stimulated lipase (BSSL) that allows for proper fat hydrolysis and absorption by the breast-fed infant [67]. On the other hand, pasteurization of human milk destroys heat-labile BSSL and formula lacks digestive enzymes all together. This is of clinical importance, as infants fed formula will demonstrate fat malabsorption. Fat absorption, quantified as coefficient of fat absorption (CFA), in formula or pasteurized human milk-fed preterm infants is 70–80 % [22••] in contrast to 90 % in preterm infants fed mother’s own milk. Casper et al. demonstrated that preterm infants fed formula or pasteurized human milk supplemented with recombinant human BSSL showed improved growth velocity and fat absorption [68].

The consequences of fat malabsorption extend beyond potential impaired growth. Neonatal mouse pups with lipase deficiency (induced with a BSSL inhibitor or as a product of BSSL knockout mice) fed artificial formula or dam milk were noted to have lipid accumulation within the intestinal epithelium of the ileum and lower jejunum with associated villus damage and loss of epithelial integrity [69]. Interestingly, the site of injury was predominantly in the distal ileum—a location that activates the “ileal brake” in the presence of undigested fats and is the predominant region involved in the majority of NEC cases.

Fat absorption and delivery of structurally appropriate feedings also have implications for gut motility and feeding tolerance. The phenomenon of an ileal brake has been observed when partially digested triglycerides are delivered to the ileum with ensuing impaired jejunal motility [70]. Gut motility may also be affected by protein content as demonstrated by Mihatsch et al. Very low birth weight infants fed preterm formula with hydrolyzed protein established full enteral feedings significantly faster than those fed standard preterm formula [71]. Postulated mechanisms include higher induction of motilin levels and reduced activity of opioid receptor agonists with hydrolyzed protein [72, 73].

Intestinal Health as a Gateway to Systemic Disease

Optimizing postnatal gut development is not only important in mitigating the risk of NEC, but may also play a role in mitigating the risk of common systemic morbidities observed in the preterm infant. Clustering of disorders such as retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), periventricular leukomalacia, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) with NEC is observed among extremely low gestational age newborns [74]. A heightened vulnerability to diseases secondary to prematurity could easily explain disease clustering in very low birth weight infants. However, even after controlling for gestational age, infants with severe NEC (Bell stage IIIb) remained at significantly increased risk of BPD, ROP, and white matter injury. With the explanatory variable of extreme prematurity removed, the clustering of these disorders must share an alternate etiology.

Altered postnatal gut development including microbial dysbiosis, impaired innate defenses, and dysregulated inflammation allows for bacterial translocation and a transition from a local to systemic neonatal inflammatory response. The systemic inflammatory response associated with NEC results in the release of mediators that have been implicated in distal organ injury including the brain, lungs, and retina [75, 76, 77]. In a study of infants born at 23–27 weeks’ gestation, children followed at 24 months post-term equivalent who had a history of surgical NEC without late-onset bacteremia were at an increased risk of Psychomotor Developmental Indices <70 [OR = 2.7 (1.2, 6.4)] [78]. This observation suggests that bowel injury, at least in its most severe form, contributes to a systemic inflammatory response with both short-term multi organ and long-term developmental consequences.

Conclusions

Immediate practice changes as well as future pursuits may serve to optimize early intestinal development (Table 2). Following birth, NPO status should be limited and early feeding with progressive advancement should be carried forward in an attempt to avoid disruption of intestinal development and to promote continued growth. Additionally, the importance of human milk delivery is self-evident in the context of a growing understanding of the nutritional and non-nutritional benefits of human milk. An appreciation of the impact of gut-altering medications, such as antibiotics and antacids, may furthermore help to limit their pathologic impact on bacterial colonization and intestinal physiology. Variability in feeding practices should finally be addressed via establishment of evidence-based feeding protocols. Moving forward, further research is required in the use of prebiotics, probiotics, human milk-derived fortifiers, and immunonutrients. Nutritional and developmental support may also be individualized in the future with advancements in the field of nutrigenomics. An unveiling of the developmental pathways of the gut that are altered with premature delivery and manipulated by nutritional and non-nutritional NICU interventions can further identify additional bedside strategies that can incrementally improve upon the care and optimize postnatal gut development in the preterm infant.
Table 2

Nutritional strategies to optimize early intestinal development

What can be implemented now?

 Limit duration of NPO status

 Practice early and progressive enteral feedings

 Encourage delivery of human milk

 Limit medication exposures that are known to alter bacterial colonization patterns, disrupt intestinal epithelium

 Establish a feeding policy to help minimize variability in nutritional delivery

What can we pursue?

 Prebiotics (nucleotides, oligosaccharides)

 Probiotics

 Human milk derived fortifiers

 Immunonutrients (specific amino acids, LCPUFAs)

 Personalized medicine with metabolomic phenotypic signatures (nutrigenomics)

 Other?

Notes

Disclosure

Brian L. Montenegro declares that he has no conflict of interest. Camilia R. Martin received Grants from Abbott Nutrition and Alcresta.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    •• Neu J, Walker WA. Necrotizing enterocolitis. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(3):255–64. State of the art review in the current understanding of necrotizing enterocolitis. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Bell EF, Shankaran S, Laptook AR, Walsh MC, et al. Neonatal outcomes of extremely preterm infants from the NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Pediatrics. 2010;126(3):443–56.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    • Eidelman AI. Breastfeeding and the use of human milk: an analysis of the American Academy of Pediatrics 2012 Breastfeeding Policy Statement. Breastfeed Med. 2012;7(5):323–4. Latest recommendations on the use of human milk. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lemons JA, Bauer CR, Oh W, Korones SB, Papile LA, Stoll BJ, et al. Very low birth weight outcomes of the National Institute of Child health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network, January 1995 through December 1996. NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Pediatrics. 2001;107(1):E1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vighi G, Marcucci F, Sensi L, Di Cara G, Frati F. Allergy and the gastrointestinal system. Clin Exp Immunol. 2008;153(Suppl 1):3–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    • Schwartz S, Friedberg I, Ivanov IV, Davidson LA, Goldsby JS, Dahl DB et al. A metagenomic study of diet-dependent interaction between gut microbiota and host in infants reveals differences in immune response. Genome Biol. 2012;13(4):r32. Novel use of current technologies to evaluate the nutritional impact on immune responses of the developing gut. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    • Verduci E, Banderali G, Barberi S, Radaelli G, Lops A, Betti F et al. Epigenetic effects of human breast milk. Nutrients. 2014;6(4):1711–24. Introduction to the value of nutrigenomics in evaluating the biological effects of nutrition. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mulvihill SJSM, Debas HT, Fonkalsrud EW. The role of amniotic fluid in fetal nutrition. J Pediatr Surg. 1985;20:668–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cho CK, Shan SJ, Winsor EJ, Diamandis EP. Proteomics analysis of human amniotic fluid. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2007;6(8):1406–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Newsholme P, Procopio J, Lima MM, Pithon-Curi TC, Curi R. Glutamine and glutamate: their central role in cell metabolism and function. Cell Biochem Funct. 2003;21(1):1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Becker RM, Wu G, Galanko JA, Chen W, Maynor AR, Bose CL, et al. Reduced serum amino acid concentrations in infants with necrotizing enterocolitis. J Pediatr. 2000;137(6):785–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moe-Byrne T, Wagner JV, McGuire W. Glutamine supplementation to prevent morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;3:CD001457.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Payne D, Kubes P. Nitric oxide donors reduce the rise in reperfusion-induced intestinal mucosal permeability. A J Physiol. 1993;265(1 Pt 1):G189–95.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Di Lorenzo M, Bass J, Krantis A. Use of l-arginine in the treatment of experimental necrotizing enterocolitis. J Pediatr Surg. 1995;30(2):235–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amin HJ, Zamora SA, McMillan DD, Fick GH, Butzner JD, Parsons HG, et al. Arginine supplementation prevents necrotizing enterocolitis in the premature infant. J Pediatr. 2002;140(4):425–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    • Martin CR, Dasilva DA, Cluette-Brown JE, Dimonda C, Hamill A, Bhutta AQ et al. Decreased postnatal docosahexaenoic and arachidonic acid blood levels in premature infants are associated with neonatal morbidities. J Pediatr. 2011;159(5):743–9 e1-2. Clinical study linking early postnatal fatty acid levels to acute morbidities in the preterm infant. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schulzke SM, Patole SK, Simmer K. Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2:CD000375.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lapillonne A, Eleni dit Trolli S, Kermorvant-Duchemin E. Postnatal docosahexaenoic acid deficiency is an inevitable consequence of current recommendations and practice in preterm infants. Neonatology. 2010;98(4):397–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kurlak LO, Stephenson TJ. Plausible explanations for effects of long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) on neonates. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1999;80(2):F148–54.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lu J, Jilling T, Li D, Caplan MS. Polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation alters proinflammatory gene expression and reduces the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis in a neonatal rat model. Pediatr Res. 2007;61(4):427–32.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Connor KM, SanGiovanni JP, Lofqvist C, Aderman CM, Chen J, Higuchi A, et al. Increased dietary intake of omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces pathological retinal angiogenesis. Nat Med. 2007;13(7):868–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    •• Martin CR. Fatty acid requirements in preterm infants and their role in health and disease. Clin Perinatol. 2014;41(2):363–82. Review of the pleitropic potential of fatty acids as an immunonutrient in preterm infant health and risk of disease. The effect of nutrition on the body is not confined to the provision of energy for growth, but rather encompasses for the preterm infant organ development, angiogenesis, regulation of inflammation, and immune ontogeny. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klingenberg C, Embleton ND, Jacobs SE, O’Connell LA, Kuschel CA. Enteral feeding practices in very preterm infants: an international survey. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2012;97(1):F56–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    • Cormack B, Sinn J, Lui K, Tudehope D. Australasian neonatal intensive care enteral nutrition survey: implications for practice. J Paediatr Child Health. 2013;49(4):E340–7. A survey revealing the barriers to enteral feedings in the preterm infant. Understanding the barriers highlights the areas for improvement and educational needs paving the way for evidence-based practice standards to be developed and implemented. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mihatsch WA, von Schoenaich P, Fahnenstich H, Dehne N, Ebbecke H, Plath C, et al. The significance of gastric residuals in the early enteral feeding advancement of extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics. 2002;109(3):457–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dollberg S, Lusky A, Reichman B. Patent ductus arteriosus, indomethacin and necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants: a population-based study. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2005;40(2):184–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Madan JC, Kendrick D, Hagadorn JI, Frantz ID 3rd. Patent ductus arteriosus therapy: impact on neonatal and 18 month outcome. Pediatrics. 2009;123(2):674–81.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    • Clyman R, Wickremasinghe A, Jhaveri N, Hassinger DC, Attridge JT, Sanocka U et al. Enteral feeding during indomethacin and ibuprofen treatment of a patent ductus arteriosus. J Pediatr. 2013;163(2):406–11. A clinical study establishing the safety of trophic feedings during treatment for a PDA, a common scenario for which feedings are held. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dorling J, Kempley S, Leaf A. Feeding growth restricted preterm infants with abnormal antenatal Doppler results. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005;90(5):F359–63.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Geary E. Risk of necrotizing enterocolitis and feeding interventions for preterm infants with abnormal umbilical artery Doppler. Neonatal Netw. 2013;32(1):5–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hentschel R, Hensel D, Brune T, Rabe H, Jorch G. Impact on blood pressure and intestinal perfusion of dobutamine or dopamine in hypotensive preterm infants. Biol Neonate. 1995;68(5):318–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Davey AM, Wagner CL, Cox C, Kendig JW. Feeding premature infants while low umbilical artery catheters are in place: a prospective, randomized trial. J Pediatr. 1994;124(5 Pt 1):795–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Havranek T, Johanboeke P, Madramootoo C, Carver JD. Umbilical artery catheters do not affect intestinal blood flow responses to minimal enteral feedings. J Perinatol. 2007;27(6):375–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hughes CA, Dowling RH. Speed of onset of adaptive mucosal hypoplasia and hypofunction in the intestine of parenterally fed rats. Clin Sci. 1980;59(5):317–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Niinikoski H, Stoll B, Guan X, Kansagra K, Lambert BD, Stephens J, et al. Onset of small intestinal atrophy is associated with reduced intestinal blood flow in TPN-fed neonatal piglets. J Nutr. 2004;134(6):1467–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Owens L, Burrin DG, Berseth CL. Minimal enteral feeding induces maturation of intestinal motor function but not mucosal growth in neonatal dogs. J Nutr. 2002;132(9):2717–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cilieborg MS, Boye M, Thymann T, Jensen BB, Sangild PT. Diet-dependent effects of minimal enteral nutrition on intestinal function and necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm pigs. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2011;35(1):32–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sangild PT. Gut responses to enteral nutrition in preterm infants and animals. Exp Biol Med. 2006;231(11):1695–711.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bode L, Kunz C, Muhly-Reinholz M, Mayer K, Seeger W, Rudloff S. Inhibition of monocyte, lymphocyte, and neutrophil adhesion to endothelial cells by human milk oligosaccharides. Thromb Haemost. 2004;92(6):1402–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Newburg DS, Ruiz-Palacios GM, Morrow AL. Human milk glycans protect infants against enteric pathogens. Annu Rev Nutr. 2005;25:37–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    •• Jantscher-Krenn E, Zherebtsov M, Nissan C, Goth K, Guner YS, Naidu N et al. The human milk oligosaccharide disialyllacto-N-tetraose prevents necrotising enterocolitis in neonatal rats. Gut. 2012;61(10):1417–25. A study highlighting the benefit of oligosaccharides and delineating the importance of the time of exposure, or “window of opportunity” when administering immunonutrients. Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Morgan J, Bombell S, McGuire W. Early trophic feeding versus enteral fasting for very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;3:CD000504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Morgan J, Young L, McGuire W. Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;5:CD001970.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Morgan J, Young L, McGuire W. Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;3:CD001241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    •• SIFT Investigators Group. Early enteral feeding strategies for very preterm infants: current evidence from Cochrane reviews. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2013;98(6):F470–2. A thoughtful review highlighting the current state of feeding practices and the gaps in research. Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hamilton E, Massey C, Ross J, Taylor S. Early enteral feeding in very low birth weight infants. Early Hum Dev. 2014;90(5):227–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Patole SK, de Klerk N. Impact of standardised feeding regimens on incidence of neonatal necrotising enterocolitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005;90(2):F147–51.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Clark RH, Bloom BT, Spitzer AR, Gerstmann DR. Reported medication use in the neonatal intensive care unit: data from a large national data set. Pediatrics. 2006;117(6):1979–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Berrington JE, Stewart CJ, Cummings SP, Embleton ND. The neonatal bowel microbiome in health and infection. Curr opin in infect dis. 2014;27(3):236–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Claud EC, Walker WA. Hypothesis: inappropriate colonization of the premature intestine can cause neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis. FASEB J. 2001;15(8):1398–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Palmer C, Bik EM, DiGiulio DB, Relman DA, Brown PO. Development of the human infant intestinal microbiota. PLoS Biol. 2007;5(7):e177.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mai V, Young CM, Ukhanova M, Wang X, Sun Y, Casella G, et al. Fecal microbiota in premature infants prior to necrotizing enterocolitis. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20647.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wang Y, Hoenig JD, Malin KJ, Qamar S, Petrof EO, Sun J, et al. 16S rRNA gene-based analysis of fecal microbiota from preterm infants with and without necrotizing enterocolitis. ISME J. 2009;3(8):944–54.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cotten CM, Taylor S, Stoll B, Goldberg RN, Hansen NI, Sanchez PJ, et al. Prolonged duration of initial empirical antibiotic treatment is associated with increased rates of necrotizing enterocolitis and death for extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics. 2009;123(1):58–66.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cordero L, Ayers LW. Duration of empiric antibiotics for suspected early-onset sepsis in extremely low birth weight infants. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24(9):662–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Higgins RD, Fanaroff AA, Duara S, Goldberg R, et al. Very low birth weight preterm infants with early onset neonatal sepsis: the predominance of gram-negative infections continues in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network, 2002–2003. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005;24(7):635–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Puopolo KM, Draper D, Wi S, Newman TB, Zupancic J, Lieberman E, et al. Estimating the probability of neonatal early-onset infection on the basis of maternal risk factors. Pediatrics. 2011;128(5):e1155–63.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Terrin G, Passariello A, De Curtis M, Manguso F, Salvia G, Lega L, et al. Ranitidine is associated with infections, necrotizing enterocolitis, and fatal outcome in newborns. Pediatrics. 2012;129(1):e40–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Guillet R, Stoll BJ, Cotten CM, Gantz M, McDonald S, Poole WK, et al. Association of H2-blocker therapy and higher incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Pediatrics. 2006;117(2):e137–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Carrion V, Egan EA. Prevention of neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1990;11(3):317–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gupta RW, Tran L, Norori J, Ferris MJ, Eren AM, Taylor CM, et al. Histamine-2 receptor blockers alter the fecal microbiota in premature infants. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2013;56(4):397–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Cotton RB, Hazinski TA, Morrow JD, Roberts LJ, Zeldin DC, Lindstrom DP, et al. Cimetidine does not prevent lung injury in newborn premature infants. Pediatr Res. 2006;59(6):795–800.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wheatley E, Kennedy KA. Cross-over trial of treatment for bradycardia attributed to gastroesophageal reflux in preterm infants. J Pediatr. 2009;155(4):516–21.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Orenstein SR, Shalaby TM, Devandry SN, Liacouras CA, Czinn SJ, Dice JE, et al. Famotidine for infant gastro-oesophageal reflux: a multi-centre, randomized, placebo-controlled, withdrawal trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;17(9):1097–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Poets CF, Brockmann PE. Myth: gastroesophageal reflux is a pathological entity in the preterm infant. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011;16(5):259–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lebenthal E, Lee PC. Development of functional responses in human exocrine pancreas. Pediatrics. 1980;66(4):556–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lindquist S, Andersson EL, Lundberg L, Hernell O. Bile salt-stimulated lipase plays an unexpected role in arthritis development in rodents. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47006.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Casper C, Carnielli Virgilio P, Hascoet J-M, Lapillonne A, Maggio L, Timdahl K, Olsson B, Vågerö M, Hernell O. rhBSSL Improves growth and LCPUFA absorption in preterm infants fed formula or pasteurized breast milk. JPGN. 2014;59(1):61–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Howles PN, Stemmerman GN, Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Hui DY. Carboxyl ester lipase activity in milk prevents fat-derived intestinal injury in neonatal mice. Am J Physiol. 1999;277(3 Pt 1):G653–61.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Spiller RC, Trotman IF, Higgins BE, Ghatei MA, Grimble GK, Lee YC, et al. The ileal brake-inhibition of jejunal motility after ileal fat perfusion in man. Gut. 1984;25(4):365–74.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mihatsch WA, Franz AR, Hogel J, Pohlandt F. Hydrolyzed protein accelerates feeding advancement in very low birth weight infants. Pediatrics. 2002;110(6):1199–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Tormo R, Potau N, Infante D, Moran J, Martin B, Bergada A. Protein in infant formulas. Future aspects of development. Early Hum Dev. 1998;53(Suppl):S165–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Sturner RA, Chang J. Opioid peptide content of predigested infant formulas [abstract]. Pediatr Res. 1991;29:114A.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Leviton A, Dammann O, Engelke S, Allred E, Kuban KC, O’Shea TM, et al. The clustering of disorders in infants born before the 28th week of gestation. Acta Paediatr. 2010;99(12):1795–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Bose CL, Dammann CE, Laughon MM. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia and inflammatory biomarkers in the premature neonate. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2008;93(6):F455–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ferguson TA, Apte RS. Angiogenesis in eye disease: immunity gained or immunity lost? Seminars in Immunopathology. 2008;30(2):111–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Eklind S, Mallard C, Arvidsson P, Hagberg H. Lipopolysaccharide induces both a primary and a secondary phase of sensitization in the developing rat brain. Pediatr Res. 2005;58(1):112–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Martin CR, Dammann O, Allred EN, Patel S, O’Shea TM, Kuban KC, et al. Neurodevelopment of extremely preterm infants who had necrotizing enterocolitis with or without late bacteremia. J Pediatr. 2010;157(5):751 e1–756 e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Newborn MedicineBoston Children’s HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeonatologyBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations