4.7 Article

Differences in fat content and fatty acid proportions among colostrum, transitional, and mature milk from women delivering very preterm, preterm, and term infants

期刊

CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 116-123

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2010.07.013

关键词

Conjugated linoleic acid; DHA; Human milk; Milk banking; Preterm infants; Creamatocrit

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Education and Science [AGL2005-069401/ALI]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [AGL2008-04124/ALI, AGL2009-09730/ALI]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & aims: Human milk composition changes according to gestational age and stage of lactation, but infants fed banked human milk often receive pooled milk. We studied the changes in fat content and fatty acid proportions throughout lactation in very preterm, preterm, and full term milk, and the differences among gestational age groups. Methods: Samples from women delivering before 30 (n = 10), between 30 and 37 (n = 10), and between 38 and 42 (n = 23) weeks of gestation were analyzed. Results: Fat content was higher in very preterm than in preterm and full term samples (p < 0.05). Medium-chain saturated fatty acids, alpha-linolenic acid, and rumenic acid proportions increased (p < 0.05) during lactation, while those of most long-chain saturated fatty acids and most long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids from the n-3 and n-6 families decreased (p < 0.05). In colostrum and transitional milk, medium-chain saturated fatty acid proportions were highest in the very preterm group, and decreased with gestational age (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The differences in fat and fatty acids of human milk obtained at different gestational ages and stages of lactation may impact preterm infants' health. Therefore they could be taken into account when feeding newborns banked human milk and when designing infant formulas or human milk fortifiers. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据