Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T21:27:06.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of breast-feeding compared with formula-feeding on preterm infant body composition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2016

Pan Huang ,
Jianghua Zhou ,
Yanan Yin ,
Wenjuan Jing ,
Biru Luo  and
Jiang Wang
Pan Huang
Affiliation:
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China
Jianghua Zhou
Affiliation:
Department of the Center of Coordination and Innovation for Aging Care and Health Promotion of Sichuan, Chengdu Medical School, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China
Yanan Yin
Affiliation:
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China
Wenjuan Jing
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China
Biru Luo*
Affiliation:
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China
Jiang Wang
Affiliation:
College of Nursing, Jinggangshan University, Jian 343009, Jiangxi, People’s Republic of China
*
*Corresponding author: B. Luo, fax +86 28 8559065, email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effect of breast-feeding and formula-feeding on body composition of preterm infants. We searched the literature using PubMed, Cochrane Central Library Issue, Ovid (Medline), Embase and other resources such as Google Scholar, electronic databases and bibliographies of relevant articles; two reviewers collected and extracted data independently. All the authors assessed risk of bias independently using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). A fixed-effects meta-analysis was undertaken with RevMan 5 software (The Cochrane Collaboration) using the inverse variance method (P≥0·05; χ2 test). In contrast, a random-effects meta-analysis was carried out. Altogether, 630 articles were identified using search strategy, and the references within retrieved articles were also assessed. A total of six studies were included in this systematic review. In formula-fed infants, fat mass was higher at term (mean difference 0·24 (95 % CI 0·17, 0·31) kg), fat-free mass was higher at 36 weeks of gestational (mean difference 0·12 (95 % CI 0·04, 0·21) kg) and the percentage of fat mass was higher at 36 weeks of gestation (mean difference 3·70 (95 % CI 1·81, 5·59) kg) compared with breast-fed infants. Compared with breast-feeding, formula-feeding is associated with altered body composition from birth to term in preterm infants. The effects of formula-feeding on preterm infant body composition from term to 12-month corrected age are inconclusive in our study. Well-designed studies are required in the future to explore the effects of formula-feeding compared with breast-feeding.

Keywords

Breast-feedingFormula-feedingPreterm infantsBody composition
Type
Full Papers
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 116 , Issue 1 , 14 July 2016 , pp. 132 - 141
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2016 

To achieve optimal growth, preterm infants need better nutrition in the neonatal period than any other time of their life because of decreased intra-uterine nutrient deposition( Reference Hay, Lucas and Heird 1 ). The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that breast milk should be the preferred feeding for all infants. Formula milk is recommended when human milk supply is inadequate or the mother is unable to breast-feed( Reference Eidelman, Schanler and Johnston 2 ). Meanwhile, preterm infants often require additional supervisions and support systems compared with term infants, because their buccal coordination and swallowing mechanisms are not fully matured( Reference Wang, Dorer and Fleming 3 ). In addition, despite lower weight and shorter length than term infants upon discharge, preterm infants have been found to show a catch-up growth and abnormal adiposity at term corrected age, which indicates a potential risk factor for CVD( Reference Roggero, Giannì and Amato 4 , Reference Uthaya, Thomas and Hamilton 5 ). Therefore, it is essential to monitor growth and body composition changes continuously in relation to different nutrition interventions, because growth pattern and body composition appear to have a long-term effect on health outcomes( Reference Roggero, Giannì and Piemontese 6 ).

It is quite clear that a period of rapid growth would be likely to have negative effects on long-term health outcomes( Reference Sighal and Lucas 7 ), and unbalanced catch-up growth of fat mass (FM) could attribute to this association. At the same time, two types of rapid catch-up growth in preterm infants exist( Reference Ong 8 ): one is paralleled by an increase in ‘predominantly FM’ and the other by ‘predominantly fat-free mass (FFM)’. Moreover, evidence suggests that FFM and FM can also provide precise determinations of body composition( Reference Mazess, Barden and Bisek 9 ). Therefore, important implications can be obtained by measuring FM and FFM.

Despite the critical inter-relationship between early nutrition, growth, development, and subsequent health, a few data are available on changes of body composition in preterm infants during the 1st year of life. In addition, systematic reviews that determine the effect of formula milk feeding compared with maternal breast milk feeding on rate of growth and developmental outcomes in preterm or low birth weight infants have been inconclusive, because no data from randomised trials of formula milk v. maternal breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants could be obtained( Reference Henderson, Anthony and McGuire 10 ). Meanwhile, the study of Fewtrell et al.( Reference Fewtrell, Kennedy and Murgatroyd 11 ) suggested that breast-feeding or high-sn-2 infant formula has no significant effect on bone mass in the long term.

The purpose of our study was to assess the effects of breast-feeding v. formula-feeding on body composition by collecting all the evidence available from cohort studies comparing the effects of breast-feeding v. formula-feeding on preterm infant body composition.

Methods

Protocol and registration

Our systematic review was registered at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, with the registration number CRD42015023335.

Eligibility criteria

  1. (1) The participants were preterm infants (≤37 weeks of gestation at birth and/or 2500 g) without congenital malformations or complications affecting body composition.

  2. (2) The types of exposure were breast-feeding (exclusive or predominant) and formula-feeding (exclusive or predominant). Broadly, formula milk can be considered as follows: (i) ‘term’ formulae, designed for term infants providing 280–293 kJ/100 ml (67–70 kcal/100 ml); (ii) ‘preterm’ formulae, designed to provide nutrient intakes to match intra-uterine accretion rates with energy enrichment (about 335 kJ/100 ml (80 kcal/100 ml)), variably protein and mineral enrichment( Reference Fewtrell and Lucas 12 ). The effects of breast-feeding and formula-feeding on body composition were measured at the same time points.

  3. (3) The outcomes were FM (kg), FFM (kg) and the percentage of FM. We excluded studies in which body composition was measured by skinfold thickness because of its poor ability to predict body composition( Reference de Bruin, van Velthoven and Stijnen 13 ).

  4. (4) The types of studies were cohort studies; no language restrictions were placed. Review articles and commentaries were excluded.

Information sources

This systematic review was designed and carried out according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses( Reference Moher, Liberati and Tetzlaff 14 ). This included electronic searches of databases such as PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/), Cochrane Central Library Issue, Ovid(medline), Embase and other resources (such as Google Scholar). All databases were searched from their earliest records to May 2015 and were updated in August 2015.

Search

Subject terms, keywords and truncation symbol were used in the search strategy. The search method was adjusted in accordance with each database, using a combination of key words such as ((‘Premature Birth’) OR (‘Infant, Premature’) OR (‘Labor, Premature’)) AND ((‘Infant formulas’) OR (‘artificial formula’) OR (‘breast feeding’) OR (‘human milk’)) AND ((‘body composition’) OR (‘Body Fat Distribution’)), as well as Medical Subject headings (MeSH) terms; for example, (‘Breast feeding’) AND (‘Infant formula’) AND (‘Infant premature’) AND (‘Body composition’). The search strategy details are given in the online Supplementary material. References of eligible articles and previous reviews were manually searched for studies probably suitable for inclusion.

Study selection

We identified relevant studies by examining the titles and abstracts of all studies or by obtaining a full text of the article if no abstract was available. The potentially eligible articles were reassessed by retrieving and evaluating the full text. Screening was conducted independently by two reviewers (P. H. and J. Z.). Inter-reviewer reliability for the study selection process was determined by the Kappa test. The consistency of our study was 61·3 %. In case of disagreement for inclusion or exclusion, the issue was discussed until consensus was achieved by the reviewers (P. H. and J. Z.).

Data collection process

Data were collected by two independent review authors (P. H. and J. W.). Efforts were made to contact authors for additional data if the articles were suitable for a meta-analysis. Authors were asked to provide mean values and standard deviations for primary outcomes including FM, FFM and the percentage of FM. We attempted to send the second request if our first request did not yield a response. The study was excluded from the meta-analyses if the author was unable to provide additional data.

Data items

The following data were extracted from the included studies: study design, year of publication, location, demographic characteristics of the participants, definition of exposure, measuring technology of body composition, outcome and potential sources of bias.

Risk of bias in individual studies

All the authors assessed the risk of bias independently using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS): (1) representativeness of the exposed cohort, (2) comparability of groups, (3) blinding of investigators who measured outcomes, (4) the time and completeness of follow-up, (5) contamination bias and (6) other potential sources of bias. Articles were scored as follows: ≥7=high quality (NOS).

Summary measures

We calculated the mean difference and 95 % CI of outcome at each postnatal age point between the formula-fed and breast-fed groups.

Synthesis of results

We performed a meta-analysis on studies that reported the outcomes (FM, FFM and the percentage of FM) between formula-fed and breast-fed groups at the following time points: 32-week corrected gestational age, 36-week gestational age, term, 3-month corrected age, 6-month corrected age and 12-month corrected age. We calculated the mean difference and 95 % CI of outcome at each postnatal age point between the formula-fed and breast-fed groups. The χ 2 test for Cochrane’s Q statistic and I 2 were used to test heterogeneity( Reference Higgins and Thompson 15 ). A fixed-effects meta-analysis was undertaken with RevMan 5 software (The Cochrane Collaboration) by using the inverse variance method (P≥0·05; χ 2 test). In contrast, a random-effects meta-analysis was carried out. This method was performed separately for each postnatal age point.

Risk of bias across studies

Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots.

Additional analyses

We intended to conduct subgroup analyses for sex and the same measuring technique of outcome.

Results

Study selection and characteristics

The characteristics of included and excluded studies are outlined in Fig. 1. A total of 630 articles were retrieved by search strategy, and eight articles were additionally identified by assessing the references of the retrieved articles and other sources. In total, 206 articles were removed as they were duplicate records of the same report through reference management software and manual screening. After examination of titles and abstracts, thirty articles were considered relevant; six studies were included and twenty-four studies were excluded after full-text review for the following reasons: the articles included breast-fed infants or formula-fed infants separately( Reference Aimone, Rovet and Ward 16 , Reference Koo and Hockman 17 ); the primary outcomes were not reported( Reference Kagan, Stanincova and Felix 18 – Reference Goswami, Rochow and Fusch 23 ); the measurement method of body composition was skinfold thickness only( Reference Dewey, Hawck and Brown 24 ); articles were reviews( Reference Roggero, Giannì and Piemontese 6 , Reference Greer 25 – Reference Juretic and Guszak 27 ); the subjects were not preterm infants( Reference de Zegher, Sebastiani and Diaz 28 , Reference Butte, Wong and Hopkinson 29 ); the language used was not English( Reference Zamrazilová, Hainer and Cerná 30 – Reference Beliaeva, Namazova-Baranova and Tarzian 32 ); the studies were randomised-controlled trials( Reference Zachariassen 33 , Reference Ryumina, Baibarina and Grosheva 34 ); and the studies were conference publications( Reference Pludowski, Czech-Kowalska and Gruszfeld 35 – Reference Belyaeva, Tarzyan and Skvortsova 37 ).

Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the search results.

Altogether, six studies were included in this systematic review( Reference Cooke, Griffin and McCormick 38 – Reference Amesz, Schaafsma and Cranendonk 43 ) (Table 1). We made efforts to contact the authors of three studies because data in their articles for meta-analysis were incomplete( Reference Pludowski, Czech-Kowalska and Gruszfeld 35 – Reference Belyaeva, Tarzyan and Skvortsova 37 ); one author replied but was unable to provide additional data( Reference Pludowski, Czech-Kowalska and Gruszfeld 35 ), and we therefore excluded the three studies from the meta-analysis. All studies were longitudinal. The main technique used to measure body composition was dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)( Reference Cooke, Griffin and McCormick 38 , Reference Wauben, Atkinson and Shah 40 – Reference Amesz, Schaafsma and Cranendonk 43 ), and the other techniques used included body electrical impedance analysis( Reference Costa-Orvay, Figueras-Aloy and Romera 39 ). Measurements of outcomes were conducted at a range of time points from birth to 12-month corrected age (Table 1). Only one study reported whether investigators were blinded when measuring the outcomes( Reference Costa-Orvay, Figueras-Aloy and Romera 39 ). The feeding methods were prospectively defined in all studies, although the definitions of feeding group varied (Table 1). FM, FFM and the percentage of FM of the feeding group for each study are shown in Table 2. Variables not normally distributed were not extracted( Reference Amesz, Schaafsma and Cranendonk 43 ).

Table 1 Characteristics of the six included studies in the systematic review

LS, longitudinal study; GA, gestational age; DXA, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; FM, fat mass; FFM, fat-free mass; CA, corrected age; BF, breast-fed; FF, formula-fed; BM, breast milk; PTF, preterm formula; TF, standard term formula; BIA, body electrical impedance analysis; CGA, corrected gestational age; BMC, bone mineral content; BMD, bone mineral density.

* Quality of the cohort studies were assessed using Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, ≥7=high quality.

Table 2 Body composition data of included studies in the systematic review (Mean values and standard deviations)

BF, breast-fed; FF, formula-fed; CA, corrected age; CGA, corrected gestational age.

Risk of bias within studies

The risk of bias of each study is presented in Table 1.

Synthesis of results

Both FFM and percentage of FM in the formula-fed group were significantly higher compared with the breast-fed group at 36-week corrected gestational age. The mean difference of the percentage of FM was 0·20 (95 % CI −1·11, 1·51) kg at 32-week corrected gestational age. No significant mean differences in FM were found between the formula-fed group and the breast-fed group at 32- and 36-week corrected gestational age (Fig. 2–4); two articles( Reference Costa-Orvay, Figueras-Aloy and Romera 39 , Reference Pieltain, De Curtis and Gérard 41 ) reported the outcomes at 32- and 36-week corrected gestational age. Percentage of FM was not provided in one study( Reference Costa-Orvay, Figueras-Aloy and Romera 39 ) even after we contacted the author; therefore, we excluded this study from the analysis for the percentage of FM. Formula-fed infants had significantly higher FM than breast-fed infants at term. No significant differences were detected in FFM or the percentage of FM (Fig. 2–4). The variables were not normally distributed, and thus the outcomes are not presented as mean values and standard deviations( Reference Amesz, Schaafsma and Cranendonk 43 ). No significant differences were found in FM, FFM or the percentage of FM between the formula-fed and the breast-fed groups at 3-month, 6-month and 12-month corrected age (Fig. 2–4). The mean differences in FM were −0·05 (95 % CI −0·28, 0·17) kg at 3-month, −0·03 (95 % CI −0·32, 0·25) kg at 6-month, −0·09 (95 % CI −0·37, 0·19) kg at 12-month corrected age. The mean differences in FFM were 0·24 (95 % CI −0·19, 0·66) kg at 3-month and 0·08 (95 % CI −0·26, 0·42) kg at 12-month corrected age.

Fig. 2 Pooled mean differences in fat mass between the formula-fed group and the breast-fed group. CGA, corrected gestational age.

Fig. 3 Pooled mean differences in fat-free mass between the formula-fed group and the breast-fed group. CGA, corrected gestational age; CA, corrected age.

Fig. 4 Pooled mean differences in the percentage of fat mass between the formula-fed group and the breast-fed group. CGA, corrected gestational age; CA, corrected age.

Pooled differences

Fig. 2–4 indicate pooled differences in FM, FFM and the percentage of FM between the formula-fed and breast-fed infants by postnatal 1 year of corrected age.

Risk of bias across studies

The funnel plots of studies at 32- and 36-week gestational age indicated no considerable publication bias.

Discussion

Summary of evidence

On the basis of the current available evidence from six studies with data available from 642 infants, we found significant complex differences in body composition between breast-feeding and formula-feeding on preterm infants at 1 year of corrected age. The outcomes of the meta-analysis indicated that formula-fed infants had higher FM at 32-week corrected gestational age, 36-week corrected gestational age and term. By 3-month corrected age, this difference was no longer apparent, with a reverse trend and lower FM in formula-fed infants. Formula-fed infants had lower FFM than their breast-fed counterparts at 32-week corrected gestational age but higher FFM from 36-week corrected gestational age to 12-month corrected age. These findings are biologically plausible. Preterm infants were fed preterm formula before term. Preterm formula contains higher levels of protein and energy than term formula. At the initial stages of enteral feeding with high energy intakes( Reference Ashworth 44 ), rapid weight gain reflects an increase in FM( Reference MacLean and Graham 45 ), which is followed by an increase in muscle mass later. Meanwhile, because the ratio of protein:energy in the diet will influence body composition( Reference Wauben, Westerterp and Gerver 46 ), the lower protein:energy ratio of breast milk may lead to less FFM deposition with excess energy deposited as fat. For this reason, the lower protein intake in breast-fed infants may explain the observed higher FM compared with formula-fed infants after term.

Our observed differences in body composition between formula-fed infants and breast-fed infants are inconsistent with the results of the meta-analysis comparing the effects of breast milk on body composition with formula-feeding in healthy, term infants( Reference Gale, Logan and Santhakumaran 47 ). The reasons may be that preterm infants have fewer nutrient reserves at birth than full-term infants, and are often fed preterm formula or supplementation of mother’s milk with human milk fortifiers. Moreover, owing to immature metabolic pathways for nutrient utilisation and/or an immature growth hormone/insulin-like growth factor axis, the absorption and assimilation of nutrients are limited. Meanwhile, although late preterm infants (gestational age between 34 and 36 weeks) are usually able to breast-feed, they are more likely to experience difficulty in establishing successful breast-feeding than term infants because preterm infants’ oro-buccal coordination and swallowing mechanisms may not be fully matured( Reference Engle, Tomashek and Wallman 48 ). Furthermore, a systematic review was conducted by Arenz et al.( Reference Arenz, Rückerl and Koletzko 49 ), which analysed the association of breast-feeding with childhood obesity. Although the results showed that breast-feeding reduced the risk of obesity in childhood significantly, results from another systematic review carried out by Owen et al.( Reference Owen, Martin and Whincup 50 ) investigating the relation between breast-feeding and BMI throughout life suggested that mean BMI was lower among breast-fed infants, but the difference was small. Promotion of breast-feeding was not likely to reduce mean BMI. The outcome of our meta-analysis indicated that breast-fed infants had lower FM at 32-week corrected gestational age, 36-week corrected gestational age and term compared with formula-fed infants. By 3-month corrected age, this effect was no longer apparent, with a trend towards reversal and higher FM in breast-fed infants. Several drawbacks limited the validity of the meta-analyses, including the types of studies, publication bias, confounding factors and potential heterogeneity between studies.

Some evidences support our outcomes. Investigators have reported that formula-fed infants having higher protein:energy ratio had a higher absolute FFM and lower percentage of FM( Reference Brunton, Saigal and Atkinson 51 ). Koo & Hockman( Reference Koo and Hockman 17 ) found that absolute FFM and FM were increased in infants fed standard formula. Furthermore, in the study of Cooke et al.( Reference Cooke, McCormick and Griffin 52 ), absolute FFM and FM were higher in the group of infants fed energy- and protein-enriched formulae, but the percentage of FM did not differ.

DXA is used to evaluate the composition of growth in a single scan. It is non-invasive and of low health risk to the infant, and has therefore been widely used in our included studies. We performed subgroup analyses of studies in which values were measured using this technique. This result supports our analysis of outcomes obtained using different in vivo measurement techniques of body composition.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. First, the percentage of FM depends on FFM; therefore, it has been recommended to adjust FM and FFM for height to create independent measures( Reference VanItallie, Yang and Heymsfield 53 ) (fat-free mass index (FFMI) and fat mass index (FMI)). However, we could not collect data on FFMI or FMI because of lack of data in included articles. Second, as suggested by Cooke et al.( Reference Cooke, McCormick and Griffin 52 ), sex was an additional significant independent variable, resulting in an increase in FM and bone mineral content in female infants( Reference Pieltain, De Curtis and Studinski 54 ). Nevertheless, we were unable to examine the effect of sex because only a limited number of studies reported outcomes by sex.

Third, breast-feeding was assessed prospectively in all included studies, which limited the recall bias. However, the definition of feeding groups varied widely, and none of the studies used WHO criteria for exclusive breast-feeding, which indicates that a contamination bias may represent an important source of heterogeneity. Moreover, one article did not report the exact definition. Fourth, the infant formulae contained higher levels of long-chain PUFA (LCPUFA), Ca and P. Although the study of de Jong et al.( Reference de Jong, Kikkert and Fidler 55 ) suggested that LCPUFA supplementation does not alter neurological function, no data were available on its effect on body composition. Fifth, one study exploring the association between psychosocial risk factors and breast-feeding discontinuation suggested that maternal depression can lead to early discontinuation of breast-feeding( Reference Taveras, Capra and Braveman 56 ). Meanwhile, women who choose formula-feeding often lack confidence in their ability to breast-feed, because they think formula may be better for their infants or their milk is inadequately supplied. Therefore, the body compositions were probably affected by psychosocial factors. Finally, none of the included articles mentioned the blinding of data collectors( Reference Cooke, Griffin and McCormick 38 – Reference Amesz, Schaafsma and Cranendonk 43 ).

Conclusion

In summary, this systematic review suggests that formula-feeding is associated with altered body composition from delivery to term in preterm infants compared with breast-feeding. The effects of formula-feeding on preterm infant body composition from term to 1 year of corrected age are inconclusive. Our findings enable to confirm the possible contributions of breast-feeding and formula-feeding on risk of obesity in childhood and adult life.

The number of studies included in our analysis is limited, and the findings from our meta-analysis should be confirmed by future studies. Meanwhile, well-designed studies are required to define the effect of formula-feeding on body composition compared with breast-feeding.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Guan-jian Liu from Evidence-Based Medicine Center of China for his assistance in data analysis. The authors also thank Qiu-ui Hao from West China Hospital of Sichuan University and Dong-tao Lin from College of Foreign Languages and Cultures of Sichuan University for editing the manuscript.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

B. L. assisted P. H. and J. Z. in formulating the research questions and supervising the quality of this manuscript. Designing the study and screening of the articles were conducted by two reviewers (P. H. and J. Z.). P. H. and J. W. collected data. J. Z. and Y. Y. analysed the data. P. H. and J. Z. wrote the article, and J. W. revised the article.

None of the authors has any conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary Material

For supplementary material/s referred to in this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007114516001720

Footnotes

†

These authors contributed equally to this work.

References

1. Hay, WW Jr, Lucas, A, Heird, WC, et al. (1999) Workshop summary: nutrition of the extremely low birth weight infant. Pediatrics 104, 1360–1368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Eidelman, AI, Schanler, RJ, Johnston, M, et al. (2012) Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Am Acad Pediatrics 129, e828–e841.Google Scholar
3. Wang, ML, Dorer, DJ, Fleming, MP, et al. (2004) Clinical outcomes of near-term infants. Pediatrics 114, 372–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Roggero, P, Giannì, ML, Amato, O, et al. (2009) Is term newborn body composition being achieved postnatally in preterm infants? Early Hum Dev 85, 349–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Uthaya, S, Thomas, EL, Hamilton, G, et al. (2005) Altered adiposity after extremely preterm birth. Pediatr Res 57, 211–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Roggero, P, Giannì, ML, Piemontese, P, et al. (2012) Effect of nutrition on growth and body composition in infants born preterm. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 25, 49–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Sighal, A & Lucas, A (2004) Early origins of cardiovascular disease: is there a unifying hypothesis? Lancet 363, 1642–1645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Ong, KK (2007) Catch-up growth in small for gestational age babies: good or bad? Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 14, 30–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Mazess, RB, Barden, HS, Bisek, JP, et al. (1990) Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry for total-body and regional bone mineral and soft-tissue composition. Am J Clin Nutr 51, 1106–1112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Henderson, G, Anthony, MY & McGuire, W (2007) Formula milk versus maternal breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants. The Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 2007, issue 17, CD002972. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002972.pub2/full Google ScholarPubMed
11. Fewtrell, MS, Kennedy, K, Murgatroyd, PR, et al. (2013) Breast-feeding and formula feeding in healthy term infants and bone health at age 10 years. Br J Nutr 110, 1061–1067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Fewtrell, M & Lucas, A (1999) Nutritional physiology: dietary requirements of term and preterm infants. Textbook of Neonatology, 3rd ed., pp. 305–325 [JM Rennie and NRC Roberton, editors]. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
13. de Bruin, NC, van Velthoven, KA, Stijnen, T, et al. (1995) Body fat and fat-free mass in infants: new and classic anthropometric indexes and prediction equations compared with total body electrical conductivity. Am J Clin Nutr 61, 1195–1205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, et al. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339, b2535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Higgins, JP & Thompson, SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta analysis. Stat Med 21, 1539–1558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Aimone, A, Rovet, J, Ward, W, et al. (2009) Growth and body composition of human milk-fed premature infants provided with extra energy and nutrients early after hospital discharge: 1-year follow-up. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 49, 456–466.Google Scholar
17. Koo, WW & Hockman, EM (2006) Posthospital discharge feeding for preterm infants: effects of standard compared with enriched milk formula on growth, bone mass, and body composition. Am J Clin Nutr 84, 1357–1364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Kagan, BM, Stanincova, V, Felix, NS, et al. (1972) Body composition of premature infants: relation to nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr 25, 1153–1164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Forbes, GB (1983) Fetal growth and body composition: implications for the premature infant. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2, S52–S58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Haschke, F, Haiden, N, Detzel, P, et al. (2013) Feeding patterns during the first 2 years and health outcome. Ann Nutr Metab 62, 16–25.Google ScholarPubMed
21. van de Lagemaat, M, Rotteveel, J, van Weissenbruch, MM, et al. (2013) Increased gain in bone mineral content of preterm infants fed an isocaloric, protein-, and mineral-enriched postdischarge formula. Eur J Nutr 52, 1781–1785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Goswami, I, Rochow, N, Fusch, G, et al. (2014) Fat and fat-free mass indices for preterm and term infants during first 6 month of life. Annual Meeting of the Society for Neonatology and Pediatrics Intensive Care, GNPI 2014, Bonn, Germany, 26 June 2014.Google Scholar
23. Goswami, I, Rochow, N, Fusch, G, et al. (2014) Fat mass (FM) and fat free mass (FFM) indices in preterm and term infants during first 6 months of life. Arch Dis Child 99, A395(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Dewey, KG, Hawck, MG, Brown, KH, et al. (2005) Infant weight-for-length is positively associated with subsequent linear growth across four different populations. Matern Child Nutr 1, 11–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Greer, FR (2007) Post-discharge nutrition: what does the evidence support? Semin Perinatol 31, 89–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Corpeleijn, WE & van Goudoever, JB (2010) Early nutrient supply and the preterm infant. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 3, S141–S142.Google Scholar
27. Juretic, E & Guszak, V (2014) Nutritional management of preterm infants. Paediatr Croat 58, 221–227.Google Scholar
28. de Zegher, F, Sebastiani, G, Diaz, M, et al. (2012) Body composition and circulating high-molecular-weight adiponectin and IGF-I in infants born small for gestational age: Breast- versus formula-feeding. Diabetes 61, 1969–1973.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Butte, NF, Wong, WW, Hopkinson, JM, et al. (2000) Infant feeding mode affects early growth and body composition. Pediatrics 106, 1355–1366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Zamrazilová, H, Hainer, V, Cerná, M, et al. (2007) Influence of early postnatal nutrition in preterm infants on their anthropometric and hormonal characteristics at the age of 10 years. Cas Lek Cesk 146, 278–283.Google ScholarPubMed
31. Baranov, AA, Namazova-Baranova, LS, Beliaeva, IA, et al. (2013) Evaluation of premature infants nutritional status by air plethysmography: first Russian prospective study. Vestn Ross Akad Med Nauk 4, 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Beliaeva, IA, Namazova-Baranova, LS, Tarzian, ÉO, et al. (2014) Peculiarities of physical growth and body composition of preterm infants, received different types of feeding, at the discharge from hospital. Vestn Ross Akad Med Nauk 5–6, 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Zachariassen, G (2013) Nutrition, growth, and allergic diseases among very preterm infants after hospital discharge. Dan Med J 60, B4588.Google ScholarPubMed
34. Ryumina, I, Baibarina, EN, Grosheva, EN, et al. (2013) Air-displacement plethysmography for body composition measurements and growth assessment of infants. 11th World Congress of Perinatal Medicine, Russian Federation, Moscow, 2013.Google Scholar
35. Pludowski, P, Czech-Kowalska, J, Gruszfeld, D, et al. (2009) Positives and negatives of breastfeeding versus formula-Prospective evaluation of body composition changes in preterm infants. Bone 45, S97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Belyaeva, I, Skvortsova, V, Tarzyan, E, et al. (2013) The role of human milk in the prevention of the later obesity in preterm infants. 11th World Congress of Perinatal Medicine, Russian Federation, Moscow, 2013.Google Scholar
37. Belyaeva, I, Tarzyan, E & Skvortsova, V Growth and body composition in pretern infants at the hospital discharge. 24th European Congress of Perinatal Medicine, Florence, 7 June 2014.Google Scholar
38. Cooke, RJ, Griffin, IJ & McCormick, K (2010) Adiposity is not altered in preterm infants fed with a nutrient-enriched formula after hospital discharge. Pediatr Res 67, 660–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Costa-Orvay, JA, Figueras-Aloy, J, Romera, G, et al. (2011) The effects of varying protein and energy intakes on the growth and body composition of very low birth weight infants. Nutr J 10, 140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Wauben, IP, Atkinson, SA, Shah, JK, et al. (1998) Growth and body composition of preterm infants: influence of nutrient fortification of mother’s milk in hospital and breastfeeding post-hospital discharge. Acta Paediatr 87, 780–785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Pieltain, C, De Curtis, M, Gérard, P, et al. (2001) Weight gain composition in preterm infants with dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Pediatr Res 49, 120–124.Google ScholarPubMed
42. Atkinson, SA & Randall-Simpson, J (2000) Factors influencing body composition of premature infants at term-adjusted age. Ann N Y Acad Sci 904, 393–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43. Amesz, EM, Schaafsma, A, Cranendonk, A, et al. (2010) Optimal growth and lower fat mass in preterm infants fed a protein-enriched postdischarge formula. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 50, 200–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44 Ashworth, A (1969) Growth rates in children recovering from protein-calorie malnutrition. Br J Nutr 23, 835–845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45. MacLean, WC Jr & Graham, GG (1980) The effect of energy intake on nitrogen content of weight gained by recovering malnourished infants. Am J Clin Nutr 33, 903–909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Wauben, I, Westerterp, K, Gerver, W-J, et al. (1995) Effect of varying protein intake on energy balance, protein balance and estimated weight gain composition in premature infants. Eur J Clin Nutr 49, 11–16.Google ScholarPubMed
47. Gale, C, Logan, KM, Santhakumaran, S, et al. (2012) Effect of breastfeeding compared with formula feeding on infant body composition: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 95, 656–669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48. Engle, WA, Tomashek, KM, Wallman, C, et al. (2007) ‘Late-preterm’ infants: a population at risk. Pediatrics 120, 1390–1401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49. Arenz, S, Rückerl, R, Koletzko, B, et al. (2004) Breast-feeding and childhood obesity – a systematic review. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 28, 1247–1256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50. Owen, CG, Martin, RM, Whincup, PH, et al. (2005) The effect of breastfeeding on mean body mass index throughout life: a quantitative review of published and unpublished observational evidence. Am J Clin Nutr 821, 298–1307.Google Scholar
51. Brunton, JA, Saigal, S & Atkinson, SA (1998) Growth and body composition in infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia up to 3 months corrected age: a randomized trial of a high-energy nutrient-enriched formula fed after hospital discharge. J Pediatr 133, 340–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52. Cooke, RJ, McCormick, K, Griffin, IJ, et al. (1999) Feeding preterm infants after hospital discharge:effect of diet on body composition. Pediatr Res 46, 461–464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53. VanItallie, TB, Yang, MU, Heymsfield, SB, et al. (1990) Height-normalized indices of the body’s fat-free mass and fat mass:potentially useful indicators of nutritional status. Am J Clin Nutr 52, 953–959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54. Pieltain, C, De Curtis, M, Studinski, F, et al. (1999) Gender influence on body composition in preterm infants fed human milk or preterm formula. Pediatr Res 45, 913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55. de Jong, C, Kikkert, HK, Fidler, V, et al. (2010) The Groningen LCPUFA study: no effect of postnatal long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in healthy term infants on neurological condition at 9 years. Br J Nutr 104, 566–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56. Taveras, EM, Capra, AM, Braveman, PA, et al. (2003) Clinician support and psychosocial risk factors associated with breastfeeding discontinuation. Pediatrics 112, 108–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57. Cooke, RJ, Rawling, DJ, McCormick, K, et al. (1999) Body composition of preterm infants during infancy. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 80, 188–191.Google ScholarPubMed
58. Hammami, M, Koo, WW & Hockman, EM (2003) Body composition of neonates from fan beam dual energy X-ray absorptiometry measurement. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 27, 423–426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59. Fomon, SJ, Haschke, F, Ziegler, EE, et al. (1982) Body composition of reference children from birth to age 10 years. Am J Clin Nutr 35, S1169–S1175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60. Tang, W, Ridout, D & Medi, N (1997) Assessment of total body water using bioelectrical impedance analysis in neonates receiving intensive care. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 77, F123–F126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
61. Wauben, IPM, Atkinson, SA, Grad, TL, et al. (1998) Moderate nutrient supplementation to mother’s milk for premature infants supports adequate bone mineralization and short-term growth: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr 67, 465–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62. Brunton, JA, Weiler, HA & Atkinson, SA (1997) Improvement in the accuracy of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry for whole body and regional analysis of body composition: validation using piglets and methodological considerations in infants. Pediatr Res 41, 590–596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63. Rigo, J, Nyamugabo, K, Picaud, JC, et al. (1998) Reference values of body composition obtained by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry in preterm and term neonates. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 27, 184–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the search results.

Figure 1

Table 1 Characteristics of the six included studies in the systematic review

Figure 2

Table 2 Body composition data of included studies in the systematic review (Mean values and standard deviations)

Figure 3

Fig. 2 Pooled mean differences in fat mass between the formula-fed group and the breast-fed group. CGA, corrected gestational age.

Figure 4

Fig. 3 Pooled mean differences in fat-free mass between the formula-fed group and the breast-fed group. CGA, corrected gestational age; CA, corrected age.

Figure 5

Fig. 4 Pooled mean differences in the percentage of fat mass between the formula-fed group and the breast-fed group. CGA, corrected gestational age; CA, corrected age.

Supplementary material: File

Huang supplementary material

Huang supplementary material 1

Download Huang supplementary material(File)
File 67.6 KB