Abstract
Human milk and direct breastfeeding are recommended for all infants, but rates are low in congenital heart disease (CHD) with limited data on institutional lactation support. We aimed to describe lactation-supportive practices within US pediatric cardiac ICUs, and to determine associations between these practices and human milk/breastfeeding outcomes.
This retrospective cohort study and site survey included centers from Collaborative Research from the Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care Society. Linear regression assessed associations between the total number of lactation-supportive practices and sites’ human milk and breastfeeding percentages, during the neonatal period and at discharge. Potentially strong clinical practices were identified through a phased analysis.
Survey respondents represented 34 sites, with detailed data for 832 patients from 24 sites. Implementation of 22 lactation-supportive practices varied (median: 10; range: 2–20); smaller sites reported fewer practices (p=0.006). Common practices included in-room breast pumps (100%), feeding protocols (91%), and staff training (79%), while skin-to-skin protocols (41%) and automatic lactation orders (44%) were underutilized. While total practices did not correlate with outcomes, sites with high versus low implementation of “strongest” practices demonstrated generally better lactation outcomes, especially at discharge: 11.7% higher human milk volume (95%CI:0.1%–23.3%); 8.2% higher breastfeeding rate (95%CI:-0.3%–16.6%). These strongest practices involved institutional formalization of lactation support.
Lactation-supportive practices varied among sites. Findings suggest formalization of practices including a developmental care protocol, comprehensive parent education/support, and protocols recommending human milk/breastfeeding may improve lactation outcomes in critical CHD.
Keywords: Heart Defects, Congenital, Milk, Human, Breast Feeding, Nutrition, Infant, Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care
Background
Human milk and direct breastfeeding are the biologically normative, globally recommended nutrition for all infants, including infants with critical congenital heart disease (CHD).1 Human milk has been associated with reduced necrotizing enterocolitis, gastrointestinal distress, sepsis, and infection; shorter length of stay; and improved growth and neurodevelopment for infants with CHD.2–7 Despite these benefits, most studies report lower-than-average human milk and breastfeeding rates in this population. In a United States (US) national registry study, only 14.4% of infants with single ventricle CHD were directly breastfeeding at discharge, and human milk feeding prevalence ranged from 30%–92% across sites.8 Importantly, clinical site was identified as one of the strongest predictors of lactation outcomes, suggesting that institutional practices may drive variability in human milk and breastfeeding for infants with critical CHD.9
Extensive evidence describes clinical practices that support lactation outcomes for preterm infants.10–12 Established recommendations include family education and support programs, skin-to-skin care, avoidance of bottles during breastfeeding establishment, and specialized staff training.2,10–12 Institutional approaches that integrate multidisciplinary support and data-driven feedback are critical,11 and comprehensive, bundled approaches have been shown to be more effective than implementation of isolated practices.12 Consistent with this finding, two cardiac intensive care unit (ICU) quality improvement projects demonstrated that implementation of comprehensive programs can substantially increase human milk feeding during the neonatal hospitalization.13,14 However, few lactation-supportive practices tailored for infants with critical CHD have been tested clinically, and the literature on direct breastfeeding, which may offer advantages for microbiota optimization, immune development, and family-infant quality of life, is sparse.2,3,15–17 Current research is further limited by a focus on post-discharge lactation support interventions,18 exclusion of infants with critical forms of CHD,18 and inclusion of infants with multiple types of congenital anomalies.19
Lactation-supportive clinical practices across US cardiac ICUs have not been described, and it remains unclear which practices are most strongly associated with improved outcomes. While evidence-based preterm lactation interventions likely apply, they may require adaptation for those with critical CHD who are typically born at term and face neonatal surgical and medical interventions that disrupt normative feeding development.2,20 Importantly, institutional practices represent modifiable targets, in contrast to unmodifiable patient-level factors.
In this study, we aimed to describe the current landscape of lactation-supportive practices within US pediatric cardiac ICUs, and to determine whether these practices are associated with human milk and breastfeeding outcomes for infants with critical CHD. We hypothesized that sites with greater implementation of lactation-supportive practices would have higher average human milk volumes and direct breastfeeding prevalence, and that we would identify practices most strongly associated with lactation outcomes.
Methods
This retrospective cohort study and cross-sectional site survey was conducted across 34 pediatric cardiac centers participating in Collaborative Research from the Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care Society (CoRe-PCICS). CoRe-PCICS institutions establish data use agreements with Riley Hospital for Children at Indiana University Health, which serves as the data coordinating center. Ethical approval was obtained through each site’s Institutional Review Board.
Methods for the primary aim of the study have been previously described.21 Briefly, neonates were included if they were born in 2021–2022, were less than 7 days old at admission, and underwent Society of Thoracic Surgeons-European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (STAT) mortality category22 2–5 cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) before age 30 days. A maximum of 50 patients were included per center. Exclusion criteria were corrected gestational age less than 37 weeks at surgery, preoperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, failure to separate from CPB, non-CPB cardiac intervention prior to surgery, cardiac transplantation as initial surgery, discharge before surgery or after 6 months corrected age, less than 7 days enteral feeding in the neonatal period (first 28 postnatal days), and major congenital anomaly that could impact feeding (e.g., cleft palate). For analyses of discharge outcomes, infants who died inpatient were excluded.
Survey development
Given no validated measure of lactation support for infants with critical CHD, a survey was developed to elicit information about lactation-supportive practices at each site. The survey included closed- and open-ended questions based on practices shown to support lactation in the neonatal ICU or critical CHD literature. The survey was piloted at one site and refined after feedback from the multi-disciplinary study leadership team before collection via personalized REDCap access from August 2024–May 2025. Survey questions and their evidence base can be found in Supplementary Table S1, and a completed Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) in Supplementary Table S2.
Nutrition, clinical, and site data
Site principal investigators (PIs) extracted electronic health record data to a REDCap database. Nutrition data, spanning the first 28 days of life and 2 days preceding discharge, included daily enteral nutrition volume, type (e.g., maternal or donor human milk, commercial formula), route (e.g., breastfeeding, bottle, feeding tube), and fortification information. As direct breastfeeding volume was mostly unmeasured, we estimated volumes based on published averages23 (see Supplementary Materials). Demographic and clinical data were collected to characterize the sample, with variables defined according to Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium registry standards when applicable.24 Site-level data included the number of cardiac ICU beds, number of index surgeries per year, and US region. The study team performed data cleaning and quality checks, consulting site PIs for corrections.
Exposures and outcomes
The primary exposure of interest was the total number of lactation-supportive clinical practices per site. Practices were assigned a score as in Supplementary Table S1, with 22 possible points. Outcomes included (1) the average percentage of human milk received by infants at each site and (2) the percentage of infants with any breastfeeding at each site, throughout the neonatal period and at discharge (last 2 inpatient days). The average percentage of human milk was based on enteral nutrition volumes, not including total parenteral nutrition.
Statistical analysis
Data visualization and descriptive statistics (n, %) characterized the frequency of each lactation-supportive practice, with the relationship between the total number of practices and site size (number of cardiac ICU beds) or region assessed via one-way ANOVA. We fit simple linear regression models to determine whether the total number of practices was associated with human milk feeding or breastfeeding outcomes.
To identify specific clinical practices that might be particularly supportive, we performed regularized regression using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator and elastic net approaches; however, no practices were identified through this approach. We then used a phased approach to investigate whether there were combined groups of practices that might be supportive. A detailed example is in Supplementary Materials. Briefly, in phase 1, we modeled the relationship between each practice and outcome, selecting practices with a potentially positive effect (i.e., the estimate was positive, even if p>0.05). In phase 2, we compared the frequency of these practices at the highest- (top 50%) and lowest-performing sites for each outcome, selecting practices with at least 15% greater frequency in the high-performing group (or the top 3 practices). In phase 3, we compared outcomes between sites with high versus low implementation of these selected practices (see Figure 3). We reported the difference in means between high and low sites and calculated uncertainty via 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Due to the limited number of sites and the hypothesis-generating nature of the study, there was no adjustment for covariates. Data are presented as mean ±SD for numeric variables, median (25th%, 75th%) for count variables, and n (%) for categorical variables. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05, and analyses were performed in R version 4.5.2.
Figure 3.
- Select clinical practices for each outcome were identified as those with the highest potential effect for that outcome as follows:
-
3 practices: developmental care protocol, preoperative feeding protocol recommending human milk, automatic orders for lactation support.The “high” group = 2–3 of these practices; the “low” group = 0–1 of these practices.
- 6 practices: Developmental care protocol, skin-to-skin/holding protocol, parent education materials/support: a) exist, b) are specifically designed for infants with CHD, and c) are received prenatally, no preoperative feeding volume restriction. “High” = 3–6 of these practices; “low” = 0–2 practices.
- 3 practices: Parent education materials/support, automatic orders for lactation support, and dedicated cardiac ICU International Board Certified Lactation Consultant (IBCLC). “High” = 2–3 of these practices; “low” = 0–1 practices.
- 5 practices: Developmental care protocol, parent education materials/support: a) exist, b) are specifically designed for infants with CHD, and c) are received prenatally; postoperative feeding protocol includes information on direct breastfeeding. “High” = 3–5 of these practices; “low” = 0–2 practices.
-
Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval.
Results
Survey respondents, who were primarily cardiac intensivists, represented 34 pediatric cardiac sites with Midwest (n=11) and Southeast (n=10) regions most common. Fourteen sites (41%) had less than 20 beds (173 ±79 index surgeries per year), 11 sites (33%) had 20–29 beds (324 ±62), and 9 sites (26%) had 30 or more beds (461 ±173). Retrospective data were collected on 832 individual patients from 24 centers, with participant characteristics in Table 1. A total of 228 (27.4%) participants had single ventricle physiology and 427 (51.3%) had a STAT score of 4 or 5, with a median 26 days hospital length of stay. On average, 69% of participants’ enteral nutrition during the neonatal period was human milk (base diet, not including fortification), of which 2.8% was donor human milk (Figure 1a,b). Human milk use varied widely across sites (Figure 1d), ranging from 24.8%–96%. Oral intake made up 33.7% of neonatal enteral nutrition, though nutrition via direct breastfeeding was rare (1.2%; Figure 1c). At discharge, infants averaged 59.6% ±45.5% of their nutrition as human milk, with 560 (69.4%) receiving any human milk and 103 (12.8%) breastfeeding.
Table 1.
Sample characteristics (n=832)
| n (%) or median (25th%, 75th%)a | |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Female | 312 (37.5%) |
| Male | 519 (62.4%) |
| Ambiguous | 1 (0.1%) |
| Infant race | |
| Black/African American | 119 (15.0%) |
| White | 544 (68.7%) |
| Another race/multi-race | 129 (16.3%) |
| (Unknown) | 40 |
| Hispanic/Latino ethnicity | 146 (19.1%) |
| (Unknown) | 68 |
| Insurance type | |
| Private, self-pay, or other | 402 (48.3%) |
| Public | 430 (51.7%) |
| Child Opportunity Index | 51 (28, 76) |
| (Unknown) | 2 |
| Birth weight-for-age z-score | −0.20 (1.05) |
| Single ventricle physiology | 228 (27.4%) |
| Major genetic syndrome | 143 (17.2%) |
| Extracardiac anomaly | 159 (19.1%) |
| STAT score | |
| 2 or 3 | 405 (48.7%) |
| 4 or 5 | 427 (51.3%) |
| Age at surgery (days) | 6 (4, 8) |
| Alive at discharge | 816 (98.1%) |
| Hospital length of stay (days) | 26 (18, 40) |
Statistics are n(%) for categorical data and median (25th%, 75th%) for continuous (count) data, except for birth weight-for-age z-score, which is presented as mean (standard deviation).
Abbreviations: STAT = Society of Thoracic Surgeons-European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
Figure 1.
Enteral nutrition volume, type, and route for infants with critical congenital heart disease during the neonatal period (n=832), across 24 US pediatric cardiac intensive care units
Survey results
The frequency of lactation-supportive clinical practices can be seen in Figure 2a. Site implementation varied (median 10 practices, range, 2–20). There was a significant association between site size and the number of practices (Figure 2e; p=0.006, η2=0.28 indicates that site size explained 28% of the variance in the number of practices), but not with region (p=0.398). Commonly implemented practices included in-room hospital-grade breast pumps (100%), feeding protocols (79% preoperative, 91% postoperative), and specialized staff lactation training (79%). Fewer than half of sites utilized protocols for pre- and post-breastfeeding weights (38%), protocols for skin-to-skin/holding (41%), or automatic orders for lactation support (44%), which most commonly included lactation consultation (38%), hospital-grade breast pumps (24%), and parent meal trays or vouchers (9%). Only 9 (26%) sites tracked human milk and breastfeeding outcomes. Additional qualitatively reported practices included non-nutritive breastfeeding, infant-driven feeding, a cardiac feeding clinic informed by direct breastfeeding literature review, processes to log and store human milk, a program to facilitate home pump access, and an International Board Certified Lactation Consultant (IBCLC) available for interstage patients with single ventricle physiology.
Figure 2.
Feeding practices and lactation support in US pediatric cardiac intensive care units (n=34)
Abbreviations: BF = breastfeeding; CHD = congenital heart disease; CICU = cardiac intensive care unit; HM = human milk; IBCLC = International Board Certified Lactation Consultant, a. (F(2, 31)=6.11, p=0.006, η2=0.28 b. (F(4, 29)=1.05, p=0.398, η2=0.13
All sites allowed infants with ductal-dependent physiology to feed preoperatively, although this was situation-dependent for 9 (26%) centers. Around half (56%) imposed preoperative feeding volume limits, with varied criteria. The most frequently reported preoperative limit was 20 mL/kg/day (n=7), followed by 30, 40, and 120 mL/kg/day (n=2 for each). Qualitative responses highlighted the variation in practice: “NICU providers often set restrictions between 40–100 mL/kg/day for ductal-dependent infants, varying by case and provider”; “For ‘high-risk’ patients. .. respiratory and hemodynamic stability guide feeding. If both are stable 10 minute limit for oral feeding, but no max volume”; and “20 mL/kg/day for all newborns stable and awaiting stage 1 palliation. .. placement on protocol versus PO ad lib is attending-dependent.”
Associations between clinical practices and lactation outcomes
In unadjusted linear regression models, there were no significant relationships between the total number of lactation-supportive clinical practices and human milk or breastfeeding outcomes, whether during the neonatal period or at discharge (Supplementary Figure S1, p>0.05 for all outcomes).
Figure 3 details practices identified as potentially stronger for lactation support. The practices most consistently identified, for 3 of the 4 outcomes of interest, were implementation of a developmental care protocol and availability of lactation-focused parent education materials or support groups. Additional practices, identified for 2 outcomes, were automatic standing orders for supportive lactation care, parent lactation education/support specifically for hospitalized infants, and parent education/support delivered prenatally or both pre- and postnatally (not postnatally alone). As in Figure 3, sites with high implementation of these select practices had higher average human milk and breastfeeding rates, with the lowest uncertainty observed for discharge outcomes. Specifically, infants at sites with high implementation of 3 practices ((1) parent lactation education/support available, (2) automatic orders for lactation support, and (3) dedicated cardiac IBCLC) had 11.7% average higher human milk volume at discharge (95%CI:0.1%–23.3% higher, p=0.049). Sites with high implementation of 5 practices ((1) developmental care protocol, (2) parent education/support available, (3) parent education/support designed for hospitalized infants, (4) parent education/support delivered prenatally or both pre- and postnatally, and (5) postoperative feeding protocol includes direct breastfeeding information) had an average 8.2% higher breastfeeding rate at discharge (95%CI:-0.3%–16.6%, p=0.056).
Discussion
This is the first comprehensive examination of lactation-supportive practices in US cardiac ICUs, and is unique in linking these clinical practices to detailed, daily nutrition data from a large sample of infants with critical CHD across multiple sites. Our findings demonstrate significant variability in lactation support across institutions. While in-room hospital-grade breast pumps and specialized staff training (e.g., certified lactation counselor, IBCLC) were available at most sites, only 41% had a formal protocol for skin-to-skin or holding – one of the most widely studied neonatal ICU interventions with consistent positive effect on lactation outcomes across meta-analyses.10,12 Interestingly, a 2016 survey of cardiac ICUs reported that 46% of sites had a formal skin-to-skin or holding policy, suggesting little change in this area over the past decade.25
Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not identify positive associations between the total number of site lactation-supportive practices and human milk or breastfeeding outcomes. These results are in contrast to Gauntt et al.’s13 2023 quality improvement project, which implemented 11 interventions at a single site (e.g., parent education materials, easily accessible hospital-grade pumps, staff education and “lactation superuser” training, discussion of skin-to-skin on daily rounds). By the end of the 2-year implementation period, the percentage of infants receiving at least 50% of their nutrition as human milk increased from a baseline of 55% to 92%, including several months in which every feed for cardiac ICU neonates was human milk. The authors determined that the most effective interventions focused directly on the lactating parent, which aligns with our finding that parent education materials and support was one of the “strongest” clinical practices. The content and timing of this parent education may also matter, with materials specifically designed for hospitalized infants and delivered prenatally identified as supportive of direct breastfeeding outcomes.
In our final analysis including only the strongest practices (Figure 3), we identified positive relationships between implementation of select clinical practices and lactation outcomes, particularly at discharge. Many of these select practices involved formalization of support at the institutional level. An active developmental care protocol was included as a strong practice in 3 of the 4 final analyses, perhaps reflecting the established role of human milk and breastfeeding as the developmentally appropriate nutritional standard, highlighted in national recommendations for developmental care of infants with CHD.26 Other influential institutional factors included formal protocols for skin-to-skin contact, feeding guidelines that explicitly discuss human milk or breastfeeding, and the absence of formal preoperative volume restrictions.
These findings suggest that formalization of lactation support at the institutional level may be important for improving human milk and breastfeeding outcomes for infants with CHD. Studies have noted improved clinical outcomes following feeding protocol implementation in the cardiac ICU,27,28 but there is limited evidence on feeding protocols designed to target lactation. Kataria-Hale et al.14 compared pre- and post-cohorts following implementation of a human milk-focused preoperative feeding protocol for infants with critical CHD, noting an increase from 54.8% to 100% human milk preoperative feeding post-protocol. At discharge, 78% of infants were receiving human milk, compared to 69% in our cohort, suggesting a potentially lasting effect of this early protocol on human milk feeding; however, direct breastfeeding was not reported. Our results are consistent with this previous work, as inclusion of a preoperative feeding protocol explicitly recommending human milk was identified as supportive of neonatal human milk feeding.
Our findings suggest areas for institutional focus with potential to improve lactation outcomes for infants with critical CHD. Sites may consider implementing protocols for developmental care and skin-to-skin holding, a preoperative feeding protocol recommending human milk as first-line nutrition, and a postoperative feeding protocol including information about direct breastfeeding. Additional key clinical practices may include provision of CHD-specific parent education and support beginning prenatally, establishment of automatic orders for lactation support, and access to an IBCLC. For sites with limited resources or no established culture of lactation support, it could be most effective to focus initial efforts on the practices that appeared most frequently as “strongest” practices: lactation-focused parent education materials/support, and implementation of a developmental care protocol.
Notably, the clinical practices that were identified as potentially strongest were implemented at fewer than 60% of surveyed sites, indicating opportunity for widespread practice improvement. These practices also align with previous literature identifying a model for successful establishment of breastfeeding for infants with critical CHD (the “Wayfinding” model).17 Within this framework, formalizing lactation-supportive practices facilitates a productive partnership between the lactating parent and the healthcare team by minimizing conflicting feeding priorities, reducing variation in feeding practice, and standardizing communication about human milk and breastfeeding across the healthcare team.
The major limitation of this study is the temporal disconnect between the site survey (initiated in 2024) and nutrition data (2021–2022). Although most sites did not report a recent change in feeding protocols, it is possible that survey results do not reflect lactation support at the time of nutrition data. CoRe-PCICS participating sites may differ from other sites, and results may not generalize. Surveys were completed by one clinician per site, and may not fully capture interdisciplinary practice. Additionally, while sites reported the existence of clinical practices, the level to which most practices were implemented was unknown and could vary per provider. While our cohort of 832 infants was large, the effective sample size (n=24 sites) was likely underpowered; thus, results should be considered preliminary and hypothesis generating. The effect of individual or bundled clinical practices on lactation outcomes requires further confirmation in well-powered studies. Importantly, our survey focused on clinical practices at the site level. There are additional relevant individual- and society-level factors; e.g., early initiation of milk expression, pumping frequency, maternal health, socioeconomic factors, and milk supply challenges.9,29
This multi-site study provides foundational knowledge about lactation support across US pediatric cardiac ICUs, highlighting varied and inconsistent implementation of lactation-supportive clinical practices. Our findings suggest that institutional formalization of practices including a developmental care protocol, comprehensive parent education and support, and feeding protocols recommending human milk and breastfeeding may improve lactation outcomes for infants with critical CHD. Although study limitations necessitate further large-scale, prospective validation, these results provide a starting point to bridge the gap in care for this vulnerable population, ensuring that human milk and breastfeeding outcomes are supported by evidence-based policy and minimizing variability in clinical practice.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
We thank Julian Wolfson (PhD, Professor, Division of Biostatistics & Health Data Science, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota) for his consultation and guidance. We sincerely thank all participating CoRe-PCICS centers, research coordinators, and clinical staff for their invaluable contributions to this study. Special thanks to those who helped with data collection: Edgar Alfaro, Courtney Alvis, Jonah Berg, Jolynne Carl, Gavin Cole, Annabeth Evans, Muhammad Faisthalab, Sarah Haas, Kristal Hock, Courtney Jones, Rebecca Kaplan, Rachael Keiffe, Nashifa Momin, and Tery Sumrall. We also thank Lina Thiel, Alexis Steiber, and Nellie Munn Swanson for assistance with data cleaning. Finally, we thank Scott Aydin, Adnan Bakar, Robert Hartman, Jillian Olsen, Sowmith Rangu, Chetana Reddy, Christine Riley, Friederike Strelow, Nathan Sznycer-Taub, and Raji Venkitachalam for their support and collaboration.
Financial support
This project was supported by a Grant-in-Aid of Research, Artistry and Scholarship from the Research and Innovation Office, University of Minnesota. Kristin M. Elgersma was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NCATS 1UM1TR004405-01A1 & K12TR004373). Content is the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Footnotes
Conflicts of interest
None.
Ethical standards
The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards United States Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008, and has been approved by the institutional committees of all participating sites.
Contributor Information
Kristin M. Elgersma, Child and Family Health Cooperative, School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Brian F. Joy, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, University of Minnesota, MHealth Fairview Masonic Children’s Hospital, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Zuofu Huang, Division of Biostatistics & Health Data Science, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Monique R. Radman, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Cardiac Critical Care Medicine, Seattle Children’s Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Kimberly I. Mills, Department of Cardiology, Boston Children’s Hospital; Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Jennifer E. Schramm, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
Joshua H. Wong, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Advocate Children’s Hospital, Oak Lawn, IL, USA
Meghan M. Chlebowski, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, The Heart Institute, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
Asaad G. Beshish, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, USA
Raya Safa, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Cardiology, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Dana Mueller, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of California San Diego, Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, CA, USA.
Brittany L. Shutes, Department of Pediatrics, Sections of Cardiology and Critical Care, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA
Saul Flores, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care and Division of Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, TX.
Jamie Furlong-Dillard, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care, Norton Children’s Hospital, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
Sukumar Suguna Narasimhulu, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Congenital Heart Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Andrea Beach, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Cardiology, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Stephanie A. Goldstein, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care, University of Utah, Intermountain Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
K. Sofia Mendieta, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Cardiac Critical Care, Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Reshma Reddy, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Nimrod Goldshtrom, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Jordan Schneider, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Children’s Hospital of Michigan, Detroit, MI, USA.
Grace Liao, Cohen Children’s Heart Center, Cohen Children’s Medical Center, Northwell, New Hyde Park, NY, USA.
Ahmed Asfari, Department of Pediatrics, Divisions of Cardiology and Critical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX, USA.
Karan B. Karki, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Cardiology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
Robert Marcel T Huibonhoa, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care, Children’s Hospital of Illinois at OSF Healthcare, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Peoria, IL, USA.
Christopher W. Mastropietro, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care, Indiana University School of Medicine, Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, IN, USA
Katherine Cashen, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Duke University and Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, USA.
References
- 1.World Health Organization, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Protecting, Promoting and Supporting Breastfeeding: The Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative for Small, Sick and Preterm Newborns. World Health Organization; 2020. Accessed October 11, 2021. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/333686 [Google Scholar]
- 2.Elgersma KM, Davis JA, Mohan-ONeill S, et al. Breastfeeding infants with CHD: An evidence summary and recommendations from the Cardiac Newborn Neuroprotective Network, a special interest group of the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative. Cardiol Young. 2025;35(10):2053–2066. doi: 10.1017/S1047951125109621 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Elgersma KM, Wolfson J, Fulkerson JA, et al. Human milk feeding and direct breastfeeding improve outcomes for infants with single ventricle congenital heart disease: Propensity score matched analysis of the NPC-QIC registry. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023;12(17):e030756. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.123.030756 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Davis JA, Baumgartel K, Baust T, et al. Neonatal diet type and associations with adverse feeding outcomes in neonates with critical congenital heart defects. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2024;38(1):54–64. doi: 10.1097/JPN.0000000000000790 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Elgersma KM, Engel ML, Ramel SE, Davis JA, McKechnie AC, Pfister KM. Human milk, breastfeeding, and early neurodevelopmental outcomes for infants with critical CHD. Cardiol Young. 2024;34(9):1–9. doi: 10.1017/S1047951124025228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Blanco C, Hair A, Justice LB, et al. A randomized trial of an exclusive human milk diet in neonates with single ventricle physiology. J Pediatr. 2023;256:105–112.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2022.11.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Elgersma KM, McKechnie AC, Schorr EN, et al. The impact of human milk on outcomes for infants with congenital heart disease: A systematic review. Breastfeed Med. 2022;17(5):393–411. doi: 10.1089/bfm.2021.0334 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Elgersma K, Spatz D, Fulkerson J, et al. Patterns of breastfeeding and human milk feeding in infants with single ventricle congenital heart disease: A population study of the NPC-QIC registry. Breastfeed Med. 2023;18(4):315–325. doi: 10.1089/bfm.2023.0036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Elgersma K, Wolfson J, Fulkerson J, et al. Predictors of human milk feeding and direct breastfeeding for infants with single ventricle congenital heart disease: Machine learning analysis of the National Pediatric Cardiology Quality Improvement Collaborative registry. J Pediatr. 2023;261:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2023.113562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hilditch C, Rumbold AR, Keir A, Middleton P, Gomersall J. Effect of neonatal unit interventions designed to increase breastfeeding in preterm infants: An overview of systematic reviews. Neonatology. Published online March 21, 2024:1–10. doi: 10.1159/000536660 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Parker MG, Stellwagen LM, Noble L, et al. Promoting human milk and breastfeeding for the very low birth weight infant. Pediatrics. 2021;148(5):e2021054272. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-054272 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Song JT, Kinshella MLW, Kawaza K, Goldfarb DM. Neonatal intensive care unit interventions to improve breastfeeding rates at discharge among preterm and low birth weight infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Breastfeed Med. 2023;18(2):97–106. doi: 10.1089/bfm.2022.0151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Gauntt J, Tucker A, Dolan K, Gajarski R, Krawczeski CD. Increasing the percentage of neonates consuming human milk in a pediatric cardiothoracic intensive care unit: A quality improvement initiative. J Pediatr. 2023;258:113441. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2023.113441 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Kataria-Hale J, Roddy DJ, Cognata A, et al. A preoperative standardized feeding protocol improves human milk use in infants with complex congenital heart disease. J Perinatol. 2021;41(3):590–597. doi: 10.1038/s41372-021-00928-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Fehr K, Moossavi S, Sbihi H, et al. Breastmilk feeding practices are associated with the co-occurrence of bacteria in mothers’ milk and the infant gut: The CHILD cohort study. Cell Host Microbe. 2020;28(2):285–297.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2020.06.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Camacho-Morales A, Caba M, García-Juárez M, Caba-Flores MD, Viveros-Contreras R, Martínez-Valenzuela C. Breastfeeding contributes to physiological immune programming in the newborn. Front Pediatr. 2021;9:744104. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.744104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Elgersma KM, McKechnie AC, Sommerness SA, Tanner LR, Swanson NM. Wayfinding through the “ocean of the great unknown”: How lactating parents establish a direct breastfeeding relationship with an infant with critical CHD. Cardiol Young. 2022;33(10):2000–2011. doi: 10.1017/S1047951122003808 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Wang H, Zhang Q, Sun Y, et al. The effect of behavioral intervention on maternal breastfeeding practice and infant growth in congenital heart disease: A randomized controlled trial. Food Sci Nutr. 2025;13(9):e70907. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.70907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Froh EB, Schwarz J, Spatz DL. Lactation outcomes among dyads following participation in a model of group prenatal care for patients with prenatally diagnosed fetal anomalies. Breastfeed Med. 2020;15(11):698–702. doi: 10.1089/bfm.2020.0061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Jones CE, Desai H, Fogel JL, et al. Disruptions in the development of feeding for infants with congenital heart disease. Cardiol Young. 2021;31(4):589–596. doi: 10.1017/S1047951120004382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Elgersma KM, Joy BF, Huang Z, et al. Human milk feeding, fortification initiation, and clinical outcomes in neonates with critical congenital heart disease: A multi-institutional study. Under Review. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Jacobs ML, Jacobs JP, Thibault D, et al. Updating an empirically based tool for analyzing congenital heart surgery mortality. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg. 2021;12(2):246–281. doi: 10.1177/2150135121991528 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Feldman-Winter L, Kellams A, Peter-Wohl S, et al. Evidence-based updates on the first week of exclusive breastfeeding among infants ≥35 weeks. Pediatrics. 2020;145(4):e20183696. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3696 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium. Data Definitions Manual v3.0. Accessed January 12, 2024. https://pc4.arbormetrix.com/Registry/static/pc4/html/datacollection.html
- 25.Sood E, Berends WM, Butcher JL, et al. Developmental care in North American pediatric cardiac intensive care units: Survey of current practices. Adv Neonatal Care. 2016;16(3):211. doi: 10.1097/ANC.0000000000000264 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Lisanti AJ, Uzark KC, Harrison TM, et al. Developmental care for hospitalized infants with complex congenital heart disease: A science advisory from the American Heart Association. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023;12(3):e028489. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.122.028489 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Furlong-Dillard J, Neary A, Marietta J, et al. Evaluating the impact of a feeding protocol in neonates before and after biventricular cardiac surgery. Pediatric Quality and Safety. 2018;3(3):e080. doi: 10.1097/pq9.0000000000000080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.O’Neal Maynord P, Johnson M, Xu M, Slaughter JC, Killen SAS. A multi-interventional nutrition program for newborns with congenital heart disease. J Pediatr. 2021;228:66–73.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Iapicca LC, Bendixen MM, Spatz DL, Parker LA. Factors associated with lactation outcomes among mothers of infants with congenital heart disease. Adv Neonatal Care. 2025;25(6):607–616. doi: 10.1097/ANC.0000000000001315 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.