Higher dose of docosahexaenoic acid in the neonatal period improves visual acuity of preterm infants: results of a randomized controlled trial
Smithers LG, Gibson RA, McPhee A, Makrides M
The American journal of clinical nutrition · 74 citas
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Ensayo controlado aleatorizado (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación independiente
- Gobierno
- Medical Research Council
- Gobierno
- National Health and Medical Research Council
Según 2 financiadores declarados.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2008-10-01 · Am J Clin Nutr · vol. 88 · número 4 · págs. 1049–1056
- Editorial
- Elsevier BV
- Citado
- 124 citas · más que el 98% de estudios similares · 10.5× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 31 trabajos
- Acceso
- Lectura gratuita
- Áreas de investigación
- Fatty Acid Research and Health · Infant Nutrition and Health · Infant Development and Preterm Care
- Palabras clave
- docosahexaenoic acid, preterm infants, visual acuity, infant formula, breast milk, sweep visual evoked potential, VEP latency, arachidonic acid, corrected age, anthropometry
- MeSH
- milk, human, humans, body weight, birth weight, docosahexaenoic acids, body height, double-blind method, nutritional requirements, evoked potentials, visual, visual acuity, dose-response relationship, drug, infant formula, infant, newborn, infant, premature, female, male, infant nutritional physiological phenomena
4 autores
- Lisa Gaye Smithers🇦🇺Flinders Medical Centre; Women's & Children's Health Research Institute; Women's and Children's Health Network; The University of Adelaide
- Robert Alan Gibson🇦🇺Flinders Medical Centre; Women's & Children's Health Research Institute; Women's and Children's Health Network; The University of Adelaide
- Andrew J McPhee🇦🇺Flinders Medical Centre; Women's & Children's Health Research Institute; Women's and Children's Health Network; The University of Adelaide
- Maria Makrides🇦🇺 · autor de correspondenciaFlinders Medical Centre; Women's & Children's Health Research Institute; Women's and Children's Health Network; The University of Adelaide
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background
Preterm infants have improved visual outcomes when fed a formula containing 0.2-0.4% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) compared with infants fed no DHA, but the optimal DHA dose is unknown.
Objective
We assessed visual responses of preterm infants fed human milk (HM) and formula with a DHA concentration estimated to match the intrauterine accretion rate (high-DHA group) compared with infants fed HM and formula containing DHA at current concentrations.
Design
A double-blind randomized controlled trial studied preterm infants born at <33 wk gestation and fed HM or formula containing 1% DHA (high-DHA group) or approximately 0.3% DHA (current practice; control group) until reaching their estimated due date (EDD). Both groups received the same concentration of arachidonic acid. Sweep visual evoked potential (VEP) acuity and latency were assessed at 2 and 4 mo corrected age (CA). Weight, length, and head circumference were assessed at EDD and at 2 and 4 mo CA.
Results
At 2 mo CA, acuity of the high-DHA group did not differ from the control group [high-DHA group (x +/- SD): 5.6 +/- 2.4 cycles per degree (cpd), n = 54; control group: 5.6 +/- 2.4 cpd, n = 61; P = 0.96]. By 4 mo CA, the high-DHA group exhibited an acuity that was 1.4 cpd higher than the control group (high-DHA: 9.6 +/- 3.7 cpd, n = 44; control: 8.2 +/- 1.8 cpd; n = 51; P = 0.025). VEP latencies and anthropometric measurements were not different between the high-DHA and control groups.
Conclusion
The DHA requirement of preterm infants may be higher than currently provided by preterm formula or HM of Australian women.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.