This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Costakos, D. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Costakos, D. T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?
PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 5 May 2004, pp. 1466-1467

Did "Controversies Concerning Vitamin K and the Newborn" Cover All the Controversies?

Dennis T. Costakos, MD, FAAP*,{ddagger}
Michael Porte, MD*
* Franciscan Skemp Healthcare-Mayo Health System
La Crosse, WI 54601
{ddagger} Mayo Medical School
Rochester, MN 55905

To the Editor.—

We are concerned about the July 2003 American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement about vitamin K, "Controversies Concerning Vitamin K and the Newborn," which recommends a 0.5- to 1-mg dose for vitamin K in the newborn.1 We have reason to believe this dose is too high for some infants. The 4th and 5th editions of Pediatric Nutrition Handbook,2,3 by the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommends 0.3 mg/kg vitamin K for infants with birth weights <1000 g.2,3 Kumar et al4 documented that premature infants (28 weeks’ gestation, 90% formula fed) had excessively high plasma vitamin K levels of 130.7 ± 125.6 ng/mL on day 14 of life after receiving 1 mg of vitamin K intramuscularly shortly after birth and 71.2 ± 39.6 µg/kg per day from total parenteral nutrition (TPN).

In our study, "Vitamin K Prophylaxis for Preterm Infants: 1 mg versus 0.5 mg,"5 we reported extremely high plasma vitamin K levels in preterm infants who received their care at one neonatal intensive care unit in the Mayo Health System. Infants (22–32 weeks’ gestational age) were studied: group 1 received 1 mg of vitamin K, and group 2 received 0.5 mg of vitamin K. The day-2 plasma levels of vitamin K were 1900 to 2600 times higher on average (group 1 day-2 level: 1307.47 ± 552.39 ng/mL; group 2 day-2 level: 975.89 ± 820.86 ng/mL), and the day-10 vitamin K group 1 levels were 550 to 600 times higher on average (274.90 ± 255.32 ng/mL; group 2 day-10 level: 297.88 ± 213.70 ng/mL), relative to normal adult plasma values, whether an initial prophylaxis dose of 0.5 or 1 mg is used. Fasting adult plasma vitamin K is 0.5 ng/mL, and in infants unsupplemented with vitamin K plasma, vitamin K values are even lower than adults. The infants in our study received a lower amount of vitamin K via TPN vitamins and intralipid (fat) and enteral routes, compared with the patients in the Kumar et al study. In our study, the 1-mg vitamin K group received 53 ± 1.2 µg/kg per day and the 0.5-mg initial vitamin K group received 69.6 ± 18.48 µg/kg per day of vitamin K in TPN. Physicians cannot give less vitamin K in our TPN without giving less of other beneficial additives, including vitamins A and E. The more appropriate TPN multivitamin would provide 10 µg/kg per day of vitamin K.

The excessively high serum levels of vitamin K in our preterm infants are iatrogenic. Although there are no toxic effects of vitamin K reported in these infants, the functions of vitamin K at the cellular and molecular level are not fully understood.6,7 For example, new research demonstrates that vitamin K is present in the brain and has a role in the brain growth receptor system. Nature may be keeping tight control for a reason. Alternatively, new research demonstrates that vitamin K (nanomolar amounts) may prevent oxidative stress in developing oligodendrocytes and neurons.8 Certainly new revisions and/or updates of the vitamin K policy statement should specifically address the preterm infant and the controversies relevant to the preterm infant.

REFERENCES

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Controversies concerning vitamin K and the newborn. Pediatrics. 2003;112 :191 –192[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Nutritional needs of preterm infants. In: Kleinman RE, ed. Pediatric Nutrition Handbook. 4th ed. Elk Grove, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 1998:66–68
  3. American Academy of Pediatrics. Nutritional needs of the preterm infant. In: Kleinman RE, ed. Pediatric Nutrition Handbook. 5th ed. Elk Grove, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2004:36
  4. Kumar D, Greer FR, Super DM, Suttie JW, Moore JJ. Vitamin K status of premature infants: implications for current recommendations. Pediatrics. 2001;108 :1117 –1122[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Costakos DT, Greer FR, Love LA, Dahlen LR, Sutte JW. Vitamin K prophylaxis for premature infants: 1 mg versus 0.5 mg. Am J Perinatol. 2003;20 :485 –490[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Tsaioun KI. Vitamin K-dependent proteins in the developing and aging nervous system. Nutr Rev. 1999;57 :231 –240[Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Ferland G. The vitamin K-dependent proteins: an update. Nutr Rev. 1998;56 :223 –230[Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Li J, Lin JC, Wang H, et al. Novel role of vitamin K in preventing oxidative injury to developing oligodendrocytes and neurons. J Neurosci. 2003;23 :5816 –5826[Abstract/Free Full Text]
 

In Reply.—

Carol A. Miller, MD, FAAP
Department of Pediatrics
University of California Medical Center
San Francisco, CA 94143

Lillian R. Blackmon, MD, FAAP
Department of Pediatrics
Division of Neonatology
University of Maryland
Baltimore, MD 21201

On behalf of the Committee on Fetus and Newborn We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the thoughtful letter from Drs Costakos and Porte. Regarding the title of the statement, they are quite correct that the content did not address the specific issue of the most appropriate dose for the very low birth weight newborn.1 With a single publication reporting markedly elevated serum concentrations at 2 weeks of age after an initial 1-mg dose of vitamin K and subsequent daily parenteral vitamin K in 10 infants of ≤28 weeks’ gestation,2 the evidence for a controversy regarding the most appropriate prophylaxis dose was not convincing at the time the revision of the then-existing statement was in progress. The subsequent study conducted by Costakos et al3 and published after the statement was in press does add to our understanding of the needs of the extremely low birth weight infant. We note that although the recommended prophylaxis dosage for the <1000-g neonate of 0.3 mg is given in both the 4th and 5th editions of Pediatric Nutrition Handbook, in the discussion of the nutritional management of the preterm infant (chapters 5 and 2, respectively4,5) in both editions, a range of doses from 0.5 to 1 mg is stated in later chapters.6,7 It was this latter dose that was used in reaffirming the efficacy of intramuscular administration over the oral route for initial prophylaxis in recommendation 1 of the statement. The matter of the most appropriate dose relative to birth weight and gestational age will be revisited with the next revision to Guidelines for Perinatal Care.

REFERENCES

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Controversies concerning vitamin K and the newborn. Pediatrics. 2003;112 :191 –192
  2. Kumar D, Greer FR, Super DM, et al. Vitamin K status of premature infants; implications for current recommendations. Pediatrics. 2001;108 :117 –1122
  3. Costakos DT, Greer FR, Love LA, et al. Vitamin K prophylaxis for premature infants: 1 mg versus 0.5 mg. Am J Perinatol. 2003;20 :485 –490
  4. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Nutrition. Nutritional needs of preterm infants. In: Kleinman RE, ed. Pediatric Nutrition Handbook. 4th ed. Elk Grove, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 1998:66–68
  5. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Nutrition. Nutrition needs of preterm infants. In: Kleinman RE, ed. Pediatric Nutrition Handbook. 5th ed. Elk Grove, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2004:36
  6. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Nutrition. Nutrition needs of preterm infants. In: Kleinman RE, ed. Pediatric Nutrition Handbook. 4th ed. Elk Grove, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 1998:277–278
  7. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Nutrition. Nutrition needs of preterm infants. In: Kleinman RE, ed. Pediatric Nutrition Handbook. 5th ed. Elk Grove, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2004:351
PEDIATRICS (ISSN 1098-4275). ©2004 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 PediatricsHome page
P. Clarke, S. J. Mitchell, R. Wynn, S. Sundaram, V. Speed, E. Gardener, D. Roeves, and M. J. Shearer
Vitamin K Prophylaxis for Preterm Infants: A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Three Regimens
Pediatrics, November 13, 2006; (2006) peds.2005-2742v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J PsychopharmacolHome page
H. Ashton, P. Gallagher, and B. Moore
The adult psychiatrist's dilemma: psychostimulant use in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
J Psychopharmacol, September 1, 2006; 20(5): 602 - 610.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. PsychiatryHome page
R. G. Ross
Psychotic and Manic-like Symptoms During Stimulant Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Am J Psychiatry, July 1, 2006; 163(7): 1149 - 1152.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
D. T. Costakos
Of Lobsters, Electronic Medical Records, and Neonatal Total Parenteral Nutrition
Pediatrics, February 1, 2006; 117(2): e328 - e332.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Costakos, D. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Costakos, D. T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?