ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of early and high intravenous (IV) amino acid (AA) supplementation on growth, health, and neurodevelopment of extremely-low-birth-weight (ELBW) infants throughout their first 2 years of life. METHODS: Infants were prospectively randomized in a double-masked fashion and treated for 7 days with either IV AA starting at 0.5 g · kg (-1) · day(-1) and increased by 0.5 g · kg(-1) every day to 3 g · kg(-1)· day(-) or starting at 2 g · kg (-1) · day(-1) of IV AA and advanced by 1 g · kg(-1) every day to 4 g · kg (-1) · day(-1). Plasma AA concentrations were determined by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. Survivors were longitudinally assessed with Bayley II Scales of Infant Development and physical, social, and global health. RESULTS: Forty-three of 51 survivors were studied. Mental Developmental Index (MDI) and Psychomotor Developmental Index were similar between groups; however, the early and high AA group had a lower MDI at 18 months. This difference disappeared at 2 years of age. The early and high AA group z score means for weight, length, and head circumferences were significantly lower than the standard AA group at most visits. Cumulative and single plasma AA concentrations correlated negatively with MDI and postnatal growth. CONCLUSIONS: ELBW infants who received early and high IV AA during the first week of life were associated with poor overall growth at 2 years.
Subject(s)
Amino Acids/administration & dosage , Dietary Supplements , Infant, Extremely Low Birth Weight/growth & development , Child Development/drug effects , Child, Preschool , Double-Blind Method , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Injections, Intravenous , Male , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to provide an economic assessment of the incremental costs associated with obtaining the World Health Organization and United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund designation as a Infant-Friendly hospital. We hypothesized that baby-friendly hospitals will have higher costs than similar non-baby-friendly hospitals. METHODS: Data from the 2007 American Hospital Association and the 2007 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Cost Reports were used to compare labor and delivery costs in baby-friendly and non-baby-friendly hospitals. Operational costs per delivery were calculated using a matched-pairs analysis of a sample of baby-friendly and non-baby-friendly hospitals in the United States. Costs associated with labor-and-delivery diagnosis-related codes were analyzed for each baby-friendly hospital and compared with the mean and median costs incurred by non-baby-friendly hospitals. RESULTS: Nursery plus labor-and-delivery costs for the baby-friendly sites were $2205 per delivery, compared with $2170 for the non-baby-friendly matched pair. Baby-friendly facilities have slightly higher costs than non-baby-friendly facilities, ranging from 1.6% to 5%, but these costs were not statistically significant (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that becoming baby-friendly is relatively cost-neutral for a typical acute care hospital. Although the overall expense of providing baby-friendly hospital nursery services is greater than nursery service costs of non-baby-friendly hospitals, the cost difference was not statistically significant. Additional research is needed to compare the economic impact of maternal and infant health benefits from breastfeeding versus the incremental expenses of becoming a baby-friendly hospital.
