PMID- 23274342
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20131101
LR  - 20191210
IS  - 1536-4801 (Electronic)
IS  - 0277-2116 (Linking)
VI  - 56
IP  - 5
DP  - 2013 May
TI  - Creamatocrit analysis of human milk overestimates fat and energy content when 
      compared to a human milk analyzer using mid-infrared spectroscopy.
PG  - 569-72
LID - 10.1097/MPG.0b013e31828390e4 [doi]
AB  - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Human milk (HM) is the preferred feeding for human 
      infants but may be inadequate to support the rapid growth of the 
      very-low-birth-weight infant. The creamatocrit (CMCT) has been widely used to 
      guide health care professionals as they analyze HM fortification; however, the 
      CMCT method is based on an equation using assumptions for protein and 
      carbohydrate with fat as the only measured variable. The aim of the present study 
      was to test the hypothesis that a human milk analyzer (HMA) would provide more 
      accurate data for fat and energy content than analysis by CMCT. METHODS: 
      Fifty-one well-mixed samples of previously frozen expressed HM were obtained 
      after thawing. Previously assayed "control" milk samples were thawed and also run 
      with unknowns. All milk samples were prewarmed at 40 degrees C and then analyzed by both 
      CMCT and HMA. CMCT fat results were substituted in the CMCT equation to reach a 
      value for energy (kcal/oz). Fat results from HMA were entered into a computer 
      model to reach a value for energy (kcal/oz). Fat and energy results were compared 
      by paired t test with statistical significance set at P < 0.05. An additional 10 
      samples were analyzed locally by both methods and then sent to a certified 
      laboratory for quantitative analysis. Results for fat and energy were analyzed by 
      1-way analysis of variance with statistical significance set at P < 0.05. 
      RESULTS: Mean fat content by CMCT (5.8 +/- 1.9 g/dL) was significantly higher than 
      by HMA (3.2 +/- 1.1 g/dL, P < 0.001). Mean energy by CMCT (21.8 +/- 3.4 kcal/oz) was 
      also significantly higher than by HMA (17.1 +/- 2.9, P < 0.001). Comparison of 
      biochemical analysis with HMA of the subset of milk samples showed no statistical 
      difference for fat and energy, whereas CMCT was significantly higher than for 
      both fat (P < 0.001) and energy (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The CMCT method appears 
      to overestimate fat and energy content of HM samples when compared with HMA and 
      biochemical methods.
FAU - O'Neill, Edward F
AU  - O'Neill EF
AD  - Neonatal Nutrition Research Laboratory, University of Louisville, Louisville, 
      Kentucky 40292, USA.
FAU - Radmacher, Paula G
AU  - Radmacher PG
FAU - Sparks, Blake
AU  - Sparks B
FAU - Adamkin, David H
AU  - Adamkin DH
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Validation Study
PL  - United States
TA  - J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr
JT  - Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition
JID - 8211545
RN  - 0 (Dietary Carbohydrates)
RN  - 0 (Dietary Fats)
RN  - 0 (Dietary Proteins)
SB  - IM
MH  - Computer Simulation
MH  - Dietary Carbohydrates/analysis
MH  - Dietary Fats/*analysis
MH  - Dietary Proteins/analysis
MH  - *Energy Intake
MH  - Female
MH  - Humans
MH  - Infant, Newborn
MH  - Infant, Very Low Birth Weight
MH  - Milk, Human/*chemistry
MH  - Models, Biological
MH  - Reproducibility of Results
MH  - Spectrophotometry, Infrared/*methods
EDAT- 2013/01/01 06:00
MHDA- 2013/11/02 06:00
CRDT- 2013/01/01 06:00
PHST- 2013/01/01 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2013/01/01 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2013/11/02 06:00 [medline]
AID - 10.1097/MPG.0b013e31828390e4 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2013 May;56(5):569-72. doi: 
      10.1097/MPG.0b013e31828390e4.