Differing structural properties of foods affect the development of mandibular control and muscle coordination in infants and young children.

The development of chewing is an essential motor skill that is continually refined throughout early childhood. From a motor control perspective, the advancement of textures is dependent upon the fit between a child's oral anatomic and motor system and food properties. The purpose of this exploratory study is to identify age-related changes in chewing motor coordination and control and to determine if these changes are associated with the differing structural properties of solid foods, as well as to explore the role of explanatory variables such as the emergence of teeth and bite force. The masticatory muscle coordination (i.e., coupling of synergistic and antagonistic muscle pairs) and control (i.e., speed, displacement, chewing rate, duration, and number of chews) of fifty children were assessed cross-sectionally at five ages: 9-, 12-, 18-, 24-, and 36-months using electromyography (EMG) and 3D optical motion capture while children ate three foods that had differing structural properties. The results of this study found that children made gains in their chewing motor control (decreased duration of chewing sequences and lateral jaw displacement) and coordination (improved jaw muscle coupling) throughout this period. The structural differences in foods also affected chewing performance at all ages. These preliminary findings suggest that some solid textures are better adapted for immature mandibular control than others and that the development of chewing is a protracted process that may be impacted by the emergence of teeth and changes to bite force.

Advancement in Texture in Early Complementary Feeding and the Relevance to Developmental Outcomes.

A child's transition to independent eating is a protracted process that progresses over the course of many years. Although major health agencies, such as the World Health Organization, now offer clear guidance when to begin introducing solids, advice about how to safely transition to progressively challenging foods is varied and comes from a staggering number of sources. The resulting conflicting views have promoted parental confusion and anxiety about what foods are appropriate and when to advance to new textures. Efforts to develop science-based recommendations for complementary feeding include research on the development of chewing motor skills. Chewing development is an essential aspect of feeding readiness that is often overlooked by agencies developing recommendations for complementary feeding, and little is known about the development of chewing motor skills and how children learn to accommodate foods with varying textures. Such information is essential for designing developmentally appropriate foods, minimizing food aversions, providing caregivers science-based guidance regarding the safety and appropriateness of new foods, and identifying children at risk for choking or feeding impairments.

Warfarin and aspirin in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS: We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS: The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P=0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P=0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P=0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P=0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; WARCEF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00041938.).