Preterm Nutrition Consensus (2024)
Reviewed by Sarvin Ghavam, MD
Reviewed on
Preterm Nutrition Consensus Enteral Feeds
Population: Neonates <32 weeks and/or <1500 grams
Date of Initial Publication: March 2022
Revision Date: October 2024
Contact Author: Sarvin Ghavam
Contributing Authors: Joseph Asaro, Melissa Clegg, Alina Ivashchuk, Purvi Kapadia-Jethva, Catherine Myers, Lauren Slivka, Kristina Spaide, Tami Stuart
Abstract
The nutrition provided to premature neonates, specifically those most at risk, born less than 32 weeks gestation and/or less than 1500 grams can contribute to a multiple outcome for these neonates. Nutrition impacts weight gain, linear growth, neurodevelopment, as well as outcomes such chronic lung disease and sepsis. The goal of this consensus is to provide a consistent and evidenced based approach toward providing optimal nutritional support for neonates balanced with decreasing risk of necrotizing enterocolitis and feeding intolerance.
A multidisciplinary team including physicians, dietitians and lactation consultants worked together to formulate a current enteral feeding guideline and unified feeding advance approach.
Consensus Goals
- Evidenced based approach to feeding less than 32 wk and/or less than 1500 gram at birth.
- Improve weight gain, linear growth and provide optimal feeding advance and fortification goals.
- Decrease Necrotizing Enterocolitis rates.
Background
Standardization of feeding protocols has been shown to decreased the incidence of NEC. Early enteral feeds with human milk is beneficial for premature neonates. Exclusive human milk diet had decreased risk of NEC and NEC requiring surgical repair. Research supports early feeding advances up to 30ml/kg/day does not increase the rates of necrotizing enterocolitis and improves time to full enteral feeds with decreased length of time for requiring TPN or intravenous fluids. Rapid enteral advance also decreases extrauterine growth restriction as well as improves short term outcomes. Earlier fortification of feeds improves protein intake of VLBW without deleterious effects, with positive impact on chronic conditions and long term growth.
Previous Consensus Statement or Data from Division of Neonatology (if applicable)
None Available
Literature Review
| Title | Author | Level of Evidence | Primary Outcome | Results | Key Findings / Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enteral Feeding of the Preterm Infant | Kate D. Brune and Steven M. Donn | Review Article | Feeds starting by 48hrs of age | Feeds starting by 48hrs of age, no difference in NEC with slow vs fast advance, fortification no later than 100 ml/kg | |
| Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds to prevent necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants | Morgan J, Young L, McGuire W Cochrane | Level I | Effect of early trophic feeding versus enteral fasting on feed tolerance, growth and development, and the incidence of neonatal morbidity (including NEC and invasive infection) and mortality in very preterm or VLBW infants | -9 trials of 1106 infants - - Few were extremely preterm (<28wks' GA) or ELBW - Did not detect statistically significant effects on the risk of NEC or all-cause mortality - 4 of the trials restricted participation to IUGR infants with Doppler evidence of abnormal flow. Infants who had delayed introduction of enteral feeds took longer to establish full enteral feeding (2-4 days) | - Delaying the introduction of progressive enteral feeds >4 days after birth did not reduce the risk of developing NEC in very preterm or VLBW infants, including growth-restricted infants - Delaying the introduction of progressive enteral feeds resulted in a few days' delay in establishing full enteral feeds but the clinical importance of this effect was unclear - The applicability of these findings to extremely preterm or ELBW infants was uncertain. |
| Controlled Trial of Two Incremental Milk-Feeding Rates in Preterm Infants | SIFT Investigators Group NEJM | Level II | Survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months | Survival without moderate or severe neurodevelop mental disability at 24 months occurred in 65.5% in faster increment and 68.1% in slower increment. Late onset sepsis 29.8% faster vs 31.1% slower, NEC: 5% faster vs 5.6% slower | No significant difference between faster vs slower group |
| Randomized, controlled trial of slow versus rapid feeding volume advancement in preterm infants | Judith Caple Pediatrics | Level II | -Days to reach full feeds -2nd outcome Days to regain BW, days of IV fluid, length of hospital stay, incidence of feeding complications & NEC | -Invention group – 30ml/k/d Control group – 20ml/k/d Until 150mL/k/d then fortification for both groups - until weight of 1800- 1900gms reached. Invention Group – Mean DOL to reached 150mL/k/d, fewer PN days, regain birth weight shorter duration of hospitalizatio n was significant. -No significant difference in NEC, # of feeding intolerance | Advancing feedings at a rate of 30mL/k/d is as safe as advancing at the rate of 20mL/k/d |
| Randomized controlled trial of slow vs rapid enteral feeding advancements on the clinical outcomes of preterm infants with birth weight 750- 1250 g | Karagol J Parenter Enteral Nutr | Level II | -Days to reach full feeds -2nd outcome NEC, Late-onset sepsis, feeding intolerance, growth outcomes | -Group 1=slow (20mL/k/d) Group 2=rapid (30mL/k/d) Until 180mL/k/d. -Rapid feeding – Mean DOL to reached 180mL/k/d, fewer PN days, regain birth weight shorter duration of hospitalizatio n were significant in 750-1000g & 1000-1250g infants. -No significant difference in NEC, # of feeding intolerance Incidence of cultureproven late onset sepsis was significant in rapid feeding. -Significantly dec. in average number of central line days | -Rapid enteral feeding advancement in 750- 1250g infants reduces the time to reach full enteral feeding and use of PN. -No increase in the risk of sepsis, NEC -Also decreased extrauterine growth restriction with improved short-term outcome. |
| Early trophic feeding versus enteral fasting for very preterm or very low birth weight infants | Morgan Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 | Level I | 1. Feed intolerance: days to establish full enteral feeding independently of parenteral nutrition 2.NEC | 9 trials, 754 very preterm or VLBW infants. No evidence that early trophic feeding affected feed tolerance or growth rates. Meta-analysis did not detect a statistically significant effect on the incidence of NEC: typical risk ratio 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.70); risk difference 0.01 (-0.03 to 0.05). | - The available trial data do not provide evidence of important beneficial or harmful effects of early trophic feeding for very preterm or very low birth weight infants. - The applicability of these findings to extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight or growth restricted infants is limited. |
| Slow versus rapid enteral feeding advancement in preterm newborn infants 1000- 1499 g: a randomized controlled trial | Kirshnamurthy et al. | Level II | Time to full enteral feeds | Neonates in the rapid feeding advancement group (30ml/kg/day) achieved full volume feedings before the slow advancement group (median 7 days vs. 9 days), had significantly fewer days of IVFs, shorter length of stay, and regained BW earlier. No statistical differences in proportion of infants with apnea, feed interruption or feed intolerance | Rapid enteral feeding advancements of 30 mL/kg/day are well tolerated by stable preterm neonates weighing 1000-1499 g |
| Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants | Oddie SJ Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021 | Level I | -Determine effects of slow rates of EN advancement on NEC, mortality, and other morbidities in VLVBW infants. -Secondary outcome-growth, neurodevelopment, time to reach full feeds, time to establish PO feeds, feeding intolerance, incidence of invasive infection, LOS | -No evidence to support slower rates of advancement (15- 20ml/kg/d) compared with faster rates (30- 40ml/kg/d) reduces risk of NEC in VLBW infants. -Infants with slower advancement of feeds reached full feeds and regained BW several days later then infants who had faster rates of advancement | EN feed advancement at slower rates (slower than 24ml/kg/d) does not reduce risk of feeding intolerance, NEC, or death of very preterm or VLBW infants. Advancing feeds at increased rates (30- 40ml/kg daily) shortens time to regain BW, reach full feeds, and may reduce risk of lateonset invasive infection. |
| Improved outcomes with a standardized feeding protocol for very low birth weight infants | K R McCallie J Perinatol. 2011 | Level III | Days to reach full feeds (160mlc/kg/day) | -ELBW infants reached enteral feeds of 120 ml/kg/day and 160 ml/kg/day significantly faster and had significant fewer days on PN. -Decreased NEC in after group among both VLBW and ELBW groups, late onset sepsis decreased in the after group, decrease in discharge weight below 3% | Implementation of a standardized feeding protocol for VLBE infants result in earlier successful enteral feeding without increased rates of major morbidities |
| An Exclusively Human MilkBased Diet is Associated with a Lower Rate of NEC than a Diet of Human Milk and Bovine Milk-Based Products | Sullivan et al The Journal of Pediatrics 2010 | Level III | Multicenter, prospective, randomized trial of infants 500- 1250g looking at pasteurized donor human milk-based human milk fortifier when enteral intake was 40 vs. 100mL/kg/day vs. bovine milk-based human milk fortifier at 100 mL/kg/day | No difference in duration of parenteral nutrition, length of stay, incidence of LOS, or difference in growth | Groups receiving exclusively human milk diet had significantly lower rates of NEC and NEC requiring surgical intervention |
| Early vs. Delayed Fortification of Human Milk in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review | Alyahya W, Simpson J, Garcia AL, Mactier H, et al. Neonatology 2020 | Level IV | -Comparison of effect of early vs. late fortification in VLBW infants on growth, feeding intolerance, NEC, sepsis, length of hospital stay, and maturity at discharge -Fortification with bovine human milk fortifier -2 studies met inclusion criteria, looking at 171 infants | No significant impact of early vs. late fortification on outcomes | |
| Evaluation of Human Milk Fortification from the Time of First Feeding: Effects on Infants of Less Than 31 Weeks Gestational Age | Tillman S, Brandon DH, & Silva SG. Journal of Perinatology 2011 | Level IV | Retrospective single center study of infants <31 weeks comparing fortification with powdered human milk fortifier at initial feeding vs. ~85 mL/kg/day (50-100 mL/kg/day) | 95 infants included in the analysis (53 in early fortification vs. 42 in delayed fortification) | No difference in weight gain between early and late fortification Early fortification associated with lower alkaline phosphatase levels from 33 weeks corrected age and beyond |
| Early Fortification of Enteral Feedings for Infants <1250 Grams Birth Weight Receiving a Human Milk Diet Including Human Milk Based Fortifier | Huston R., Lee M, Rider E, Stawarz M, et al. Journal of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine 2020 | Level III | -Multicenter retrospective cohort study of infants 500- 1250g birth weight -Breast milk feedings fortified at > 60 mL/kg/day vs. < 60 mL/kg/day with human milk-based fortifier and bovine-based human milk fortifier | Early fortification was associated with improved growth velocity for weight and head circumference Early fortification was associated with decreased occurrence of chronic lung disease No other outcomes, including NEC, were associated with early vs. late fortification | |
| Early versus Delayed Human Milk Fortification in Very Low Birth Weight Infants: A Randomized Controlled Trial | Shah SD, Dereddy N, Jones TL, Dhanireddy R, et al. The Journal of Pediatrics 2016 | Level II | Prospective, randomized trial of 100 infants to compare the effect of initiating early (20 mL/kg/day) vs. delayed (100 mL/kg/day) human milk fortification on feeding intolerance and time to reach full feeding volume Fortification with bovine human milk fortifier | No difference in time to reach full feedings No significant difference in episodes of feeding intolerance, and no increased incidence of NEC in the early fortification group Median daily protein intake was higher in the early fortification group |
Literature summary
- Majority of trials showed safety and improved outcomes with faster feeding advance, especially in the >29 wk and >1000 gram neonates
- Early fortification helps establish improved protein intake, improved growth and decreases chronic issues
- No change in risk of NEC with faster feeding advance and earlier fortification
- Human milk is preferred diet for neonates <32 wks and/or <1500 grams
Delphi Survey Round Results (if applicable)
One round of Delphi survey completed across the Division of Neonatology showed agreement trophic feeds at 20ml/kg for neonates <29 wk or <1000 gram at 74%, and trophic feeds for 3 day period at 82%. Feed advancement of 20 ml/kg/day for neonates <29 weeks or <1000 grams at 87% agreement and for neonates >29 weeks or >1000 gram feed advance rate of 30ml/kg/day agreement at 73%.
Consensus statement and clinical recommendations
Oral immune therapy
- Just colostrum
- Start within 6 hr of birth
- Could be q3-q6 based on the volume obtained
Trophic feeds: Non-advancing feeds
- Start as soon as possible
- Use of Donor BM for trophic feeds if available to bridge
- IF no EBM or DBM, may consider formula feeds by 24 hours of life
- May delay up 72 hours of life if parents want exclusive EBM
- No benefit to delay beyond 4 days
<29 weeks or <1000 grams
- Trophic feeds
- Volume: 20 ml/kg/day
- Duration: up to 3 days/72 hours
- *TO consider smaller volume or prolonged trophic feeds for IUGR neonates or for clinical concern
- Advancing feeds
- Goal TFL 150-160ml/kg/day
- Volume: 20ml/kg/day
29 weeks -32 weeks or 1001 to 1500 grams
- Trophic feeds
- Volume: 20ml/kg/day divided q3h
- Duration: 1-2 days/24- 48 hours
- *TO consider smaller volume or prolonged trophic feeds for IUGR neonates or for clinical concern
- Advancing feeds
- Goal TFL of 150-160ml/kg/day
- Volume: 30ml/kg/day
Special Circumstances
- Umbilical Arterial Catheter
- Trophic feeds based on weight and GA
- *May use clinical judgement in situations where advance is desired u
- Trophic feeds based on weight and GA
- Dopamine (<5mcg/kg/min):
- Trophic feeds based on weight and GA
- Indomethacin/Tylenol for treatment of PDA
- Trophic feeds based on weight and GA
Enteral Diet/Fortification
- Early fortification is considered safe and may have a positive impact on long-term growth and chronic conditions
- For all infants <32wks and/or <1500g:
- After a minimum of 2 feeds of tolerance at 60mL/kg/d, fortify feeds:
- Prolact+6 (if available at your facility)
- HMF 24 kcal/oz (1pk per 25mL)
Premature formula 24kcal/oz*
*For facilities without DBM, MBM is not available or the use of DBM has not being consented *Must already be tolerating preterm formula 20kcal/oz u Resume a feed advance after a minimum of 2 feeds of tolerance
- Feeding calculator
- Developed by using the previous recommendations from the feed advance group
- Enter the weight for calculation and each feed volume will be provided
- May be for use with units using nurse driven feeds
- Use birthweight until 7 days and/or birthweight surpassed
Table Representation of Recommended Feeding Advance and Fortification For Preterm Neonates <32 weeks and/or <1500 grams
Considerations for High Risk patients and need to deviate from Feeding Advance Recommendations
- Medically unstable patients
- Intrauterine Growth Restriction/Small for Gestational Age
- Significant resuscitation needs at time of delivery
- Taking Gestational Age into account when choosing feed advance
- Small baby who is LGA
- Consider longer trophic feeds and possible slower advance
- <24-week gestational age consider a more cautious approach
- Consideration for longer trophic feed period (up tp 5 days, use clinical judgement)
- Consideration for 10ml/kg/day trophic feed volumes
- Consideration for slower feed advance
Vitamin D and iron supplementation for preterm infants
VITAMIN D
For All Babies, please supplement with 400IU (10mcg) of Cholecalciferol daily Once feed volumes are at (or approaching) below levels, at which time vitamin D supplementation may not be necessary
| Product* | Vit D Content of Prepared Feeds per 100mL | Volume of feeding that provides 10mcg/day (400IU/day) Vit D |
|---|---|---|
| Fortified Human Milk | ||
| Enfamil Liquid HMF1 @ 22cal/oz | 87 IU (47 IU/5mL HMF) | 460mL/d (58ml q3hrs) |
| Enfamil Liquid HMF1 @24cal/oz | 158 IU (47 IU/5mL HMF) | 255mL/d (32ml q3hrs) |
| Similac Hydrolyzed HMF2 @22cal/oz | 65 IU (35 IU/5mL HMF) | 620mL/d (78ml q3hrs) |
| Similac Hydrolyzed HMF2 @24cal/oz | 118 IU (35 IU/5mL HMF) | 340mL/d (43ml q3hrs) |
| Prolacta @ 24cal/oz | 3 IU (1.8IU/20mL Prolacta) | n/a due to low vit D content |
| Prolacta @ 26cal/oz | 4 IU (2.5IU/30mL Prolacta) | n/a due to low vit D content |
| Similac Neosure or Enfamil Enfacare powder @22cal/oz | 7 IU | n/a due to low vit D content |
| Similac Neosure or Enfamil Enfacare powder @24cal/oz | 11 IU | n/a due to low vit D content |
| Formula | ||
| Similac Special Care @22cal/oz | 112 IU | 365mL/d (46ml q3hrs) |
| Similac Special Care @24cal/oz | 122 IU | 335mL/d (42ml q3hrs) |
| Enfamil Premature @22cal/oz | 220 IU | 185mL/d (23ml q3hrs) |
| Enfamil Premature @24cal/oz | 240 IU | 170mL/d (21ml q3hrs) |
| Similac Neosure @22cal/oz | 52 IU | 730mL/d (91ml q3hrs) |
| Similac Neosure @24cal/oz | 57 IU | 715mL/d (90ml q3hrs) |
| Enfamil Enfacare @22cal/oz | 56 IU | 780mL/d (98ml q3hrs) |
| Enfamil Enfacare @24cal/oz | 61 IU | 670mL/d (84ml q3hrs) |
*Please consult Registered Dietitian for vitamin D supplementation needs with other caloric densities or feedings
1 All Enfamil liquid HMFs (acidified, standard protein, high protein) have the same vitamin and mineral content
2 All Similac liquid HMFs (hydrolyzed, extensively hydrolyzed CL) have the same vitamin and mineral content
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR INFANTS RECEIVING PROLACTA
Given the recognized variability of human milk, exclusive human milk diets will require nutritional supplementation. Thus, Prolacta fortification requires additional vitamin and mineral supplementation. If receiving Prolacta, regardless of volume, supplement 0.5mL twice daily multivitamin solution (poly-vi-sol without Fe).
Note: 1 mL of Poly Vi Sol provides 400 IU(10mcg) of Vitamin D.
IRON
Iron intake recommendations for preterm infants: elemental iron 2 to 4 mg/kg daily, maximum 15 mg total from diet and supplementation (if receiving rh-Epo, provide 6mg/kg/d)
1 EXCEPT: Similac PM 60/40 will require additional iron supplementation due to its very low iron content
2 Supplementation required until appropriate (providing 2mg/kg/d) iron-containing complementary foods have been introduced
3 Consider supplementation for IDM, SGA, and VLBW neonates at 10 to 14 days if they are feeding >100 mL/kg/day
4 An exception to this practice may be infants who have received an iron load from multiple transfusions of packed red blood cells, who might not need any iron supplementation. However, transfusion-acquired iron overload occurs primarily in neonates with hemolytic disorders
Methods of Supplementation
Note: PVS+Fe may provide excessively high iron supplementation, depending on the weight of the infant. For infants <2.5 kg, consider ordering specific mg/kg/d FeSO4 dosing.
Further Goals
- Continue to add evidence based recommendations with evolving evidence
- Review of integration of feeding advance into Divisional practice
QI Metrics
- Review NEC rates pre and post Preterm Nutrition Consensus
Disclaimer
©2025 by Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, all rights reserved.
Use of this site is subject to the Terms of Use.
The Neonatology Consensus Statements (“Statements”) are based on a consensus of medical practitioners at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (“CHOP”) and are current at the time of publication. These Statements are intended to be a guide for practitioners and may need to be adapted for each specific patient based on the practitioner’s professional judgment, consideration of any unique circumstances, the needs of each patient and their family, and/or the availability of various resources at the health care institution where the patient is located.
Accordingly, these Statements are not intended to constitute medical advice or treatment, or to create a doctor-patient relationship between/among CHOP, its physicians and the individual patients in question. CHOP does not represent or warrant that the Statements are in every respect accurate or complete, or that one or more of them apply to a particular patient or medical condition. CHOP is not responsible for any errors or omissions in the Statements, or for any outcomes a patient might experience where a clinician consulted one or more such Statements in connection with providing care for that patient. If you use a printed version of a Statement, please ensure that you are using the most current version.