Infant feeding bottle design, growth and behaviour: results from a randomised trial
M S Fewtrell, K Kennedy, R Nicholl, A Khakoo, A Lucas, M S Fewtrell, K Kennedy, R Nicholl, A Khakoo, A Lucas
Abstract
Background: Whether the design of an anti-vacuum infant feeding bottle influences infant milk intake, growth or behavior is unknown, and was the subject of this randomized trial.
Subjects: 63 (36 male) healthy, exclusively formula-fed term infants.
Intervention: Randomisation to use Bottle A (n = 31), one-way air valve: Philips Avent) versus Bottle B (n = 32), internal venting system: Dr Browns). 74 breast-fed reference infants were recruited, with randomisation (n = 24) to bottle A (n = 11) or B (n = 13) if bottle-feeding was subsequently introduced. Randomisation: stratified by gender and parity; computer-based telephone randomisation by independent clinical trials unit.
Setting: Infant home.
Primary outcome measure: infant weight gain to 4 weeks.
Secondary outcomes: (i) milk intake (ii) infant behaviour measured at 2 weeks (validated 3-day diary); (iii) risk of infection; (iv) continuation of breastfeeding following introduction of mixed feeding.
Results: Number analysed for primary outcome: Bottle A n = 29, Bottle B n = 25.
Primary outcome: There was no significant difference in weight gain between randomised groups (0-4 weeks Bottle A 0.74 (SD 1.2) SDS versus bottle B 0.51 (0.39), mean difference 0.23 (95% CI -0.31 to 0.77).
Secondary outcomes: Infants using bottle A had significantly less reported fussing (mean 46 versus 74 minutes/day, p < 0.05) than those using bottle B. There was no significant difference in any other outcome measure. Breast-fed reference group: There were no significant differences in primary or secondary outcomes between breast-fed and formula fed infants. The likelyhood of breastfeeding at 3 months was not significantly different in infants subsequently randomised to bottle A or B.
Conclusion: Bottle design may have short-term effects on infant behaviour which merit further investigation. No significant effects were seen on milk intake or growth; confidence in these findings is limited by the small sample size and this needs confirmation in a larger study.
Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov NCT00325208.
Figures
References
- Lucas A, St James-Roberts I. Colic and Excessive Crying. Report of the 105th Ross Conference on Pediatric Research. Colombus, Ohio: Ross Products Division, Abbott Laboratories; 1997. Colic, Crying, Fussing and Feeding; pp. 68–77.
- Brown CE, Magnuson B. On the physics of the infant feeding bottle and middle ear sequela: Ear disease in infants can be associated with bottle feeding. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2000;54:13–20. doi: 10.1016/S0165-5876(00)00330-X.
- Freeman JV, Cole TJ, Chinn S, Jones PR, White EM, Preece MA. Cross sectional stature and weight reference curves for the UK, 1990. Arch Dis Child. 1995;73:17–24. doi: 10.1136/adc.73.1.17.
- Lucas A, James-Roberts I. Crying, fussing and colic behaviour in breast-and bottle-fed infants. Early Hum Dev. 1998;53(1):9–18. doi: 10.1016/S0378-3782(98)00032-2.
- St James-Roberts I, Hurry J, Bowyer J. Objective confirmation of crying durations in infants referred for excessive crying. Arch Dis Child. 1993;68:82–84. doi: 10.1136/adc.68.1.82.
- St James-Roberts I, Conroy S, Wilsher K. Bases for maternal perceptions of infant crying and colic behaviour. Arch Dis Child. 1996;75:375–384. doi: 10.1136/adc.75.5.375.
- Singhal A, Lucas A. Early origins of cardiovascular disease: is there a unifying hypothesis? Lancet. 2004;363:1642–1645. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16210-7.
- Forsyth BW, Leventhal JM, McCarthy PL. Mothers' perceptions of problems of feeding and crying behaviour. Am J Dis Child. 1985;139:269–272.
- Ip S, Chung M, Raman G, Chew P, Breastfeeding and Maternal and Infant Health Outcomes in Developed Countries. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 153 (Prepared by Tufts-New England Medical Center Evidence-based Practice Center, under Contract No. 290-02-0022). AHRQ Publication No. 07-E007. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007.
Source: PubMed