Feeding Introlerance Due to Allergic Enterocolitis in Very Low Birth Weight Infants.
10.5385/jksn.2011.18.2.204
- Author:
Yu Mi KO
1
;
Jin Kyu KIM
;
So Yoon AHN
;
Hye Soo YOO
;
Ga Won JEON
;
Eun Sun KIM
;
Yun Sil CHANG
;
Won Soon PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. yschang@skku.edu
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Allergic enterocolitis;
Preterm infant;
Allergy;
Eosinophilia;
Necrotizing enterocolitis
- MeSH:
Anti-Bacterial Agents;
Birth Weight;
Enterocolitis;
Enterocolitis, Necrotizing;
Eosinophilia;
Eosinophils;
Gestational Age;
Hospitalization;
Humans;
Hypersensitivity;
Incidence;
Infant;
Infant, Newborn;
Infant, Premature;
Infant, Very Low Birth Weight;
Intensive Care, Neonatal;
Medical Records;
Milk, Human;
Retrospective Studies;
Tolnaftate
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Neonatology
2011;18(2):204-210
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Feeding intolerance is common in very low birth weight infants(VLBWI); however, research on the etiology is limited. We investigated the incidence of allergic enterocolitis (AEC) as a cause of feeding intolerance and present the clinical characteristics of VLBWIs. METHODS: The medical records of VLBWIs admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit of Samsung Medical Center between January 2009 and July 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. AEC was defined as patients who had feeding intolerance with eosinophila and who responded to hypoallergenic feeding intervention. Feeding intolerance symptoms included blood tinged stools, abdominal distension, residual feeding and regurgitation. Eosinophilia was defined as an eosinophil count > or =700 cells/mm3. Patients with feeding intolerance were divided into the AEC or non-AEC group. RESULTS: Of the 181 patients, 161 (88.9%) had a feeding intolerance, and 119 (65.7%) had eosinophilia. Seventeen infants were diagnosed with AEC. No difference in mean gestational age, birth weight, antibiotics duration, TPN duration, hospitalization, or symptom onset day was observed between patients with AEC and non-AEC patients. The percentage of eosinophilia was significantly higher in patients with AEC than in non-AEC patients. Two patients (12%) improved with restricted breast milk, 10 patients (59%) with extensively hydrolyzed formula and five patients (29%) with free amino acid-based formula. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that AEC should be considered in VLBWIs who have clinical features of feeding intolerance and eosinophilia. An aggressive increase in feeding would be possible through feeding intervention in VLBWIs with feeding intolerance.
