rsv and sids

[LiamsMommy]

Ok I hesitate to post this anywhere but here for risk of being flammed. I know that breast feeding reduces the chance of sids and rsv. It seems whenever I read about a baby that either one of these happens to they are ff and fully vax'd... Thoughts?

[rivkah]

My friend's DS was hospitalized with RSV at 4 months--exclusively BF and NOT vaxed.

[lalemma]

Here's the Mayo clinic on what causes SIDS: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sud...section=causes

Spoiler: Nobody knows.

Here are conclusions of a handful of vaccine-SIDS link studies: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/sids_faq.html

Spoiler: no link between vaccinating and SIDS.

Here is an abstract on RSV in general: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...26054204900231

Spoiler: "... nearly 100% of children in the USA are infected with the virus by 2 to 3 years of age."

Here is a PDF of a study on RSV/breast milk protection: http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/57/3/1203.pdf

Spoiler: maternal exposure to RSV does lead to antibodies in breast milk; protection doesn't last all that long. (Which makes sense, if nearly all children are infected by age 3!)
Caveat: rat study.

Here is a study abstract on RSV risk factors: http://www.uptodate.com/patients/con...XPLQ&refNum=39

Spoiler: it's more complicated than just breastfeeding or not breastfeeding. There are other risk factors, like how many people sleep in a room with the baby, birth month, and if the baby is in day care.

Hope that helps!

[jocelynr]

I definitely think breastfeeding protects babies from both SIDS and RSV. It is not, however, a guarantee. My friend's baby just spent a week in the hospital when she was 2 weeks old b/c her brother gave her RSV.

[rrs]

My youngest son was nearly hospitalized at 4 weeks for RSV. He is exclusively breastfed, and had not been vaccinated at that point.

He was very sick, I could not lay him down for a diaper change, because his respiratory function was so compromised - he would become cyanotic. I begged to keep him out of the hospital. My older son was hospitalized around that age, and it was miserable. Plus, my older son is still nursing, I did not feel that I could leave him. I managed the infection at home with a nebulizer and monitoring his oxygen saturation with a pulse oximeter.

Can breastfeed infants still be afflicted by these conditions? Of course. There are genetic propensities towards these diseases and conditions that breastfeeding cannot surmount. However, breastfeeding can shorten the duration and severity of the illness.

I really resent implications that a mother's choices caused her child's illness or even worse, death.

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by rrs

I really resent implications that a mother's choices caused her child's illness or even worse, death.

I really, really think trying to score points on the backs of dead babies is a horrific breastfeeding advocacy technique. Does this mean we shouldn't share information with mothers and mothers-to-be? Of course not. But it needs to factual information that isn't laced with guilt and blame. I don't think there's any place for speculation in this sort of conversation.

[ein328]

According to research cited by Dr. Sears in his The Baby Book, BF and cosleeping DECREASES (note: did not say PREVENTS) incidence of SIDS for a few reasons:
1. Babies who BF tend to wake more often than FF babies to eat. Less time in deep sleep cycle = lower risk.

2. When mamas and babies co-sleep, babies' breathing is somewhat regulated by mama's breathing, i.e. baby matches mama's breathing patterns.

3. Mamas who co-sleep are more likely to notice a change in baby's breathing, and can act more quickly.

So overall, maybe it's co-sleeping that offers some protection, and breastfeeding mamas are more likely to cosleep?!?!

[GoBecGo]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

I really, really think trying to score points on the backs of dead babies is a horrific breastfeeding advocacy technique. Does this mean we shouldn't share information with mothers and mothers-to-be? Of course not. But it needs to factual information that isn't laced with guilt and blame. I don't think there's any place for speculation in this sort of conversation.

[elanorh]

It's anecdotal, but our Pediatrician told me that she's only once had to hospitalize a breastfed baby with RSV. So .... I think there are protective factors, even when the baby has RSV, which make it less likely to be as severe (no guarantees, and etc.). I suspect that part of it is the comfort nursing - babies may stay hydrated more despite being ill, because of that.

I agree that subjects like this are very sensitive and really shouldn't be part of our 'tool kit.' I think emphasizing the other great things about breastfeeding is a better way to go about it.

On the other hand -- there is research showing lower incidences of SIDs in breastfed babies. As long as it's not presented as a 'silver bullet,' I don't know that it's a bad thing to mention. SIDs risks are much lower than the likelihood that a baby will get an ear infection or upper respiratory infection etc., though, so I think those more common infant issues are the ones to mention - that the research shows breastfed babies don't have as many of those, etc.

[annekh23]

There was a tragic case in this area a couple of years ago, a baby died of SIDS either at, or on the way home from an attachment parenting group (it may have even been breastfeeding support, it wasn't LLL though). I don't know details and it's possible they later found it was something else, but the baby was breastfed and the mother was close by and awake, but it still happened.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people don't really understand the difference between reduce and prevent. I don't know if this figure is correct, but I think they say each child you have reduces your risk of breast cancer by 7% and I've heard people say based on this that if you have 15 children you won't have breast cancer, as 15*7 is 105, so you've reduced your risk below zero. Erm, no, sadly not, first of all each baby reducing it by 7% only holds for the first few babies, there isn't enough research in women who've had that many babies, plus, if you do the maths, reducing it by 7% each time, not just removing 7% of the original number, your risk becomes about a third of the risk of a women who has had no children - which with breast cancer being so common is still a fairly high risk, 1 in 10 would become 1 in 30.

Breastfeeding seems to reduce the risk of breast cancer more than pregnancy does, but again, even if a year of breastfeeding halved it, a woman who had 2 kids and breastfed them both for a year would only drop from 1 in 10 to 1 in 40 (I think the numbers are more like 1 in 9, but 1 in 10 is close enough to give a clear illustration).

My mum had premenopausal breast cancer, she didn't quite get to a year per kid, but she got pretty close, yet the number of people who said to her, including nurses "if only you'd breastfed", which she did and it was exceedingly offensive to say that to her, particularly when her father had had breast cancer, which is so rare that it really is exceedingly likely that they share a cause, whether that be genetic, or environmental. If it's environmental then I suspect it was something that they were exposed to before I was born, as they had it less than 10 years apart, late 50s for my grandad, early 40s for my mum, if it's genetic, then it's probably 50/50 that I got the gene, with an unknown chance of it actually developing. So it doesn't figure in my decision to breastfeed at all, though my husband has occassionally used it to get someone to back off (her mum had breast cancer, so she's doing what she can to reduce her risk...).

Poor understanding of statistics is extremely common, even amongst people who write the research papers, you can get the numbers right, but interpret them entirely incorrectly.

[northwoods1995]

My EBF unvaxed 2 week old baby got RSV. She was born in the winter and has two older siblings in school. She did not have to be hospitalized.

[GoBecGo]

Originally Posted by annekh23

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people don't really understand the difference between reduce and prevent. I don't know if this figure is correct, but I think they say each child you have reduces your risk of breast cancer by 7% and I've heard people say based on this that if you have 15 children you won't have breast cancer, as 15*7 is 105, so you've reduced your risk below zero. Erm, no, sadly not, first of all each baby reducing it by 7% only holds for the first few babies, there isn't enough research in women who've had that many babies, plus, if you do the maths, reducing it by 7% each time, not just removing 7% of the original number, your risk becomes about a third of the risk of a women who has had no children - which with breast cancer being so common is still a fairly high risk, 1 in 10 would become 1 in 30.

Breastfeeding seems to reduce the risk of breast cancer more than pregnancy does, but again, even if a year of breastfeeding halved it, a woman who had 2 kids and breastfed them both for a year would only drop from 1 in 10 to 1 in 40 (I think the numbers are more like 1 in 9, but 1 in 10 is close enough to give a clear illustration).

My mum had premenopausal breast cancer, she didn't quite get to a year per kid, but she got pretty close, yet the number of people who said to her, including nurses "if only you'd breastfed", which she did and it was exceedingly offensive to say that to her, particularly when her father had had breast cancer, which is so rare that it really is exceedingly likely that they share a cause, whether that be genetic, or environmental. If it's environmental then I suspect it was something that they were exposed to before I was born, as they had it less than 10 years apart, late 50s for my grandad, early 40s for my mum, if it's genetic, then it's probably 50/50 that I got the gene, with an unknown chance of it actually developing. So it doesn't figure in my decision to breastfeed at all, though my husband has occassionally used it to get someone to back off (her mum had breast cancer, so she's doing what she can to reduce her risk...).

Poor understanding of statistics is extremely common, even amongst people who write the research papers, you can get the numbers right, but interpret them entirely incorrectly.

My mother died of cervical cancer. She had 8 pregnancies, 7 babies and 6 live births (one anencephalic boy was stillborn at 24weeks). She breastfed all of us to a year except one brother who was premature and never took the breast (she pumped for him for 5 months). She did not have lots of sexual partners (just her 2 husbands). She was not overweight, did not smoke and ate very healthily. She exercised, she NEVER missed her well-woman checks and in fact she had 4 smears in the 18months before she was dx, because she kept having unexplained bleeding and going back to have them check again because she knew something was "not right". She had NO risk factors, but she still died of it. It makes me so sad to read threads where people talk as if the individual is always responsible for the cancers they have and as if being healthy and living sensibly can prevent all illnesses. She was a healthy person who did everything she could to look after herself (she personally believed it was a drug interaction between drugs she took for her potentially fatal heart problem - THAT was caused by rheumatic fever as a child - which caused her cancer) and lived really well. And she died of cancer anyway.