Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom;
John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Pediatrics. 2018 Sep;142(Suppl 1):S574-S584. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-0478I.
It is widely acceptable to involve parents in decision-making about the resuscitation of extremely preterm infants (EPIs) in the gray zone. However, there are different views about where the boundaries of the gray zone should lie. Our aim in this study was to compare the resuscitation thresholds for EPIs between neonatologists in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the Netherlands.
We distributed an online survey to consultant neonatologists and neonatal registrars and fellows that included clinical scenarios in which parents requested resuscitation or nonresuscitation. Respondents were asked about the lowest gestational age and/or the worst prognosis at which they would provide resuscitation and the highest gestational age and/or the best prognosis at which they would withhold resuscitation. In additional scenarios, influence of the condition at birth or consideration of available health care resources was assessed.
The survey was completed by 162 neonatologists (30% response rate). There was a significant difference between countries; the gray zone for most UK respondents was 23 + 0/7 to 23 + 6/7 or 24 weeks' gestation, compared with 22 + 0/7 to 22 + 6/7 or 23 weeks' gestation in Sweden and 24 + 0/7 to 25 + 6/7 or 26 weeks' gestation in the Netherlands. Resuscitation thresholds were higher if an infant was born in poor condition. There was wide variation in the prognosis that warranted resuscitation or nonresuscitation. Consideration of resource scarcity did not alter responses.
In this survey, we found significant differences in approach to the resuscitation of EPIs, with a spectrum from most proactive (Sweden) to least proactive (Netherlands). Most survey respondents indicated shifts in decision-making that were associated with particular weeks' gestation. Despite the different approaches to decision-making in the 3 countries, there was relatively little difference between countries in neonatologists' prognostic thresholds for resuscitation.
在灰色地带,让父母参与极早产儿(EPI)复苏决策是被广泛接受的。然而,对于灰色地带的界限存在不同的看法。我们在这项研究中的目的是比较英国、瑞典和荷兰的新生儿科医生对 EPI 复苏的门槛。
我们向顾问新生儿科医生、新生儿注册医生和研究员发放了一份在线调查,其中包括父母要求复苏或不复苏的临床场景。受访者被问到他们会提供复苏的最低胎龄和/或最差预后,以及他们会拒绝复苏的最高胎龄和/或最佳预后。在其他场景中,评估了出生时的情况的影响或可用医疗资源的考虑。
共有 162 名新生儿科医生完成了调查(响应率为 30%)。国家之间存在显著差异;大多数英国受访者的灰色地带为 23+0/7 至 23+6/7 或 24 周,而瑞典为 22+0/7 至 22+6/7 或 23 周,荷兰为 24+0/7 至 25+6/7 或 26 周。如果婴儿出生时情况较差,复苏门槛会更高。复苏或不复苏的预后有很大差异。考虑到资源稀缺性并没有改变回应。
在这项调查中,我们发现对 EPI 复苏的方法存在显著差异,从最积极(瑞典)到最不积极(荷兰)。大多数调查受访者表示,决策的转变与特定的孕周有关。尽管这 3 个国家的决策方法存在差异,但各国之间的新生儿科医生复苏预后门槛差异相对较小。