Shifting Provider Attitudes and Institutional Resources Surrounding Resuscitation at the Limit of Gestational Viability

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to provide contemporary data regarding provider perceptions of appropriate care for resuscitation and stabilization of periviable infants and institutional resources available to providers.

Study Design A Qualtrics survey was emailed to 672 practicing neonatologists in the United States by use of public databases. Participants were asked about appropriate delivery room care for infants born at 22 to 26 weeks gestational age, factors affecting decision-making, and resources utilized regarding resuscitation. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the dataset.

Results In total, 180 responses were received, and 173 responses analyzed. Regarding preferred course of care based on gestational age, the proportion of respondents endorsing full resuscitation decreased with decreasing gestational age (25 weeks = 99%, 24 = 64%, 23 = 16%, and 22 = 4%). Deference to parental wishes correspondingly increased with decreasing gestational age (25 weeks = 1%, 24 = 35%, 23 = 82%, and 22 = 46%). Provision of comfort care was only endorsed at 22 to 23 weeks (23 weeks = 2%, 22 = 50%). Factors most impacting decision-making at 22 weeks gestational age included: outcomes based on population data (79%), parental wishes (65%), and quality of life measures (63%). Intubation with a 2.5-mm endotracheal tube (84%), surfactant administration in the delivery room (77%), and vascular access (69%) were the most supported therapies for initial stabilization. Availability of institutional resources varied; the most limited were obstetric support for cesarean delivery at the limit of viability (37%), 2.0-mm endotracheal tube (45%), small baby protocols (46%), and a consulting palliative care teams (54%).

Conclusion There appears to be discordance in provider attitudes surrounding preferred actions at 23 and 22 weeks. Provider attitudes regarding decision-making at the limit of viability and identified resource limitations are nonuniform. Between-hospital variations in outcomes for periviable infants may be partly attributable to lack of provider consensus and nonuniform resource availability across institutions.

Key Points

• Within the past decade, there has been a shift in the gray zone from 23–24 to 22–23 weeks gestation.

• Attitudes around resuscitation of infants are nonuniform despite perceived standardized approaches.

• Institutional variability in resources may contribute to variation in outcomes of periviable infants.

Keywords

limit of viability - periviable infants - extremely premature infant - provider attitudes - institutional resources

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 03. November 2020

Angenommen: 24. September 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
27. Oktober 2020

• References

• 1 Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Bell EF. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. et al. Trends in care practices, morbidity, and mortality of extremely preterm neonates, 1993-2012. JAMA 2015; 314 (10) 1039-1051
• 2 Anderson JG, Baer RJ, Partridge JC. et al. Survival and major morbidity of extremely preterm infants: a population-based study. Pediatrics 2016; 138 (01) e20154434
• 3 Lantos JD. Ethical problems in decision making in the neonatal ICU. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (19) 1851-1860
• 4 Singh J, Fanaroff J, Andrews B. et al. Resuscitation in the “gray zone” of viability: determining physician preferences and predicting infant outcomes. Pediatrics 2007; 120 (03) 519-526
• 5 Cavolo A, Dierckx de Casterlé B, Naulaers G, Gastmans C. Physicians' attitudes on resuscitation of extremely premature infants: a systematic review. Pediatrics 2019; 143 (06) e20183972
• 6 Arzuaga BH, Meadow W. National variability in neonatal resuscitation practices at the limit of viability. Am J Perinatol 2014; 31 (06) 521-528
• 7 Weiner GM, Zaichkin JM, Kattwinkel JM. Textbook of Neonatal Resuscitation. 7th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2016
• 8 Rysavy MA, Li L, Bell EF. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. et al. Between-hospital variation in treatment and outcomes in extremely preterm infants. N Engl J Med 2015; 372 (19) 1801-1811
• 9 Lantos JD. We know less than we think we know about perinatal outcomes. Pediatrics 2018; 142 (01) e20181223
• 10 Schram AW, Hougham GW, Meltzer DO, Ruhnke GW. Palliative care in critical care settings: a systematic review of communication-based competencies essential for patient and family satisfaction. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2017; 34 (09) 887-895
• 11 Morris M, Cleary JP, Soliman A. Small baby unit improves quality and outcomes in extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2015; 136 (04) e1007-e1015
• 12 Bhatt D, Rangasamy R. Need for 2.0 mm endotracheal tube for extremely low birth weight infants and need for special suction catheters and stylet. Presented at: 7th Congress of the European Academy of Paediatric Society, Oct 29–Nov 2, 2018: Paris, France
• 13 Cummings J. Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Antenatal counseling regarding resuscitation and intensive care before 25 weeks of gestation. Pediatrics 2015; 136 (03) 588-595
• 14 Wilkinson D. The self-fulfilling prophecy in intensive care. Theor Med Bioeth 2009; 30 (06) 401-410
• 15 Myers P, Laventhal N, Andrews B, Lagatta J, Meadow W. Population-based outcomes data for counseling at the margin of gestational viability. J Pediatr 2017; 181: 208-212.e4
• 16 Manley BJ, Dawson JA, Kamlin CO, Donath SM, Morley CJ, Davis PG. Clinical assessment of extremely premature infants in the delivery room is a poor predictor of survival. Pediatrics 2010; 125 (03) e559-e564
• 17 Wyckoff MH. Initial resuscitation and stabilization of the periviable neonate: the Golden-Hour approach. Semin Perinatol 2014; 38 (01) 12-16
• 18 Guinsburg R, Branco de Almeida MF, Dos Santos Rodrigues Sadeck L. Brazilian Network on Neonatal Research. et al. Proactive management of extreme prematurity: disagreement between obstetricians and neonatologists. J Perinatol 2012; 32 (12) 913-919
• 19 Ecker J, Kaimal A, Mercer B. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. et al. Periviable birth. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (04) e187-e199
• 20 Watkins PL, Dagle JM, Bell EF, Colaizy TT. Outcomes at 18 to 22 months of corrected age for infants born at 22 to 25 weeks of gestation in a center practicing active management. J Pediatr 2020; 217: 52-58.e1
• 21 Bonet M, Cuttini M, Piedvache A. MOSAIC and EPICE research groups. et al. Changes in management policies for extremely preterm births and neonatal outcomes from 2003 to 2012: two population-based studies in ten European regions. BJOG 2017; 124 (10) 1595-1604
• 22 El-Sayed Y, Borders A, Gyamfi-Bannerman C. Committee opinion no. 713. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (05) e102-e109
• 23 Carlo WA, McDonald SA, Fanaroff AA. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. et al. Association of antenatal corticosteroids with mortality and neurodevelopmental outcomes among infants born at 22 to 25 weeks' gestation. JAMA 2011; 306 (21) 2348-2358
• 24 Arzuaga BH, Cummings CL. Deliveries at extreme prematurity: outcomes, approaches, institutional variation, and uncertainty. Curr Opin Pediatr 2019; 31 (02) 182-187
• 25 Hendriks MJ, Lantos JD. Fragile lives with fragile rights: Justice for babies born at the limit of viability. Bioethics 2018; 32 (03) 205-214
• 26 Allen G, Laventhal N. Should long-term consequences of NICU care be discussed in terms of prognostic uncertainty or possible harm?. AMA J Ethics 2017; 19 (08) 743-752
• 27 Lantos JD, Meadow W. Variation in the treatment of infants born at the borderline of viability. Pediatrics 2009; 123 (06) 1588-1590