BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Postnatal growth failure happens in about half of the very low birth weight infants and this can have long-term consequences. Human milk-based multi-nutrient fortifiers (HMBF) are thought to be better tolerated than bovine milk-based multi-nutrient fortifiers (BMBF), thus facilitating early progression to full feeds and improved growth in preterm neonates. This study was done to find the advantage of HMBF over BMBF on postnatal growth and other clinical outcomes. METHODS This is a retrospective cohort study where babies <1500 g birth weight or gestational age <32 weeks were included to compare the velocity of weight gain (g/kg/day), duration of hospital stay and clinical outcomes between fortification using HMBF and BMBF till 34 weeks postmenstrual age. RESULTS Eligible neonates included in the study were 322, out of whom 123 (37%) received HMBF and 209 (63%) received BMBF. During the stay, 18 babies were changed from BMBF to HMBF and vice versa in 24 babies due to logistic reasons and parents' preferences. The mean birth weight of the babies was 1124 ± 237 g. Weight gain was higher in the exclusive HMBF group [mean difference 0.77 (0.14, 1.39) g/kg/day; p-value = 0.018]. Feed intolerance [odds ratio (OR) 0.45 (0.22, 0.95), p-value 0.037] was also significantly less in this group. However, other morbidities did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSION Higher weight gain and lower feed intolerance in the HMBF group underscores the possible advantage of using HMBF over BMBF. Larger prospective studies might bring out its effect on the duration of hospital stay and other morbidities.

No abstract