Article

Perinatal care at the limit of viability between 22 and 26 completed weeks of gestation in Switzerland 2011 Revision of the Swiss recommendations

Neonatal and Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Children's Hospital of Lucerne, Switzerland.
Schweizerische medizinische Wochenschrift (Impact Factor: 1.88). 10/2011; 141:w13280. DOI: 10.4414/smw.2011.13280
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Perinatal care of pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery and of preterm infants born at the limit of viability (22-26 completed weeks of gestation) requires a multidisciplinary approach by an experienced perinatal team. Limited precision in the determination of both gestational age and foetal weight, as well as biological variability may significantly affect the course of action chosen in individual cases. The decisions that must be taken with the pregnant women and on behalf of the preterm infant in this context are complex and have far-reaching consequences. When counselling pregnant women and their partners, neonatologists and obstetricians should provide them with comprehensive information in a sensitive and supportive way to build a basis of trust. The decisions are developed in a continuing dialogue between all parties involved (physicians, midwives, nursing staff and parents) with the principal aim to find solutions that are in the infant's and pregnant woman's best interest. Knowledge of current gestational age-specific mortality and morbidity rates and how they are modified by prenatally known prognostic factors (estimated foetal weight, sex, exposure or nonexposure to antenatal corticosteroids, single or multiple births) as well as the application of accepted ethical principles form the basis for responsible decision-making. Communication between all parties involved plays a central role. The members of the interdisciplinary working group suggest that the care of preterm infants with a gestational age between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks should generally be limited to palliative care. Obstetric interventions for foetal indications such as Caesarean section delivery are usually not indicated. In selected cases, for example, after 23 weeks of pregnancy have been completed and several of the above mentioned prenatally known prognostic factors are favourable or well informed parents insist on the initiation of life-sustaining therapies, active obstetric interventions for foetal indications and provisional intensive care of the neonate may be reasonable. In preterm infants with a gestational age between 24 0/7 and 24 6/7 weeks, it can be difficult to determine whether the burden of obstetric interventions and neonatal intensive care is justified given the limited chances of success of such a therapy. In such cases, the individual constellation of prenatally known factors which impact on prognosis can be helpful in the decision making process with the parents. In preterm infants with a gestational age between 25 0/7 and 25 6/7 weeks, foetal surveillance, obstetric interventions for foetal indications and neonatal intensive care measures are generally indicated. However, if several prenatally known prognostic factors are unfavourable and the parents agree, primary non-intervention and neonatal palliative care can be considered. All pregnant women with threatening preterm delivery or premature rupture of membranes at the limit of viability must be transferred to a perinatal centre with a level III neonatal intensive care unit no later than 23 0/7 weeks of gestation, unless emergency delivery is indicated. An experienced neonatology team should be involved in all deliveries that take place after 23 0/7 weeks of gestation to help to decide together with the parents if the initiation of intensive care measures appears to be appropriate or if preference should be given to palliative care (i.e., primary non-intervention). In doubtful situations, it can be reasonable to initiate intensive care and to admit the preterm infant to a neonatal intensive care unit (i.e., provisional intensive care). The infant's clinical evolution and additional discussions with the parents will help to clarify whether the life-sustaining therapies should be continued or withdrawn. Life support is continued as long as there is reasonable hope for survival and the infant's burden of intensive care is acceptable. If, on the other hand, the health care team and the parents have to recognise that in the light of a very poor prognosis the burden of the currently used therapies has become disproportionate, intensive care measures are no longer justified and other aspects of care (e.g., relief of pain and suffering) are the new priorities (i.e., redirection of care). If a decision is made to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapies, the health care team should focus on comfort care for the dying infant and support for the parents.

1 Follower
 · 
115 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective: We aimed to determine the long-term neurodevelopmental outcome in extremely preterm infants of 22-23 completed week's gestation as compared to infants of 24 weeks with immediate postnatal life support born in two German tertiary perinatal centres between 1999-2003. Methods: Children were assessed for cognitive and neurological outcomes at the age of 7-10 years. The test battery included a neurological examination, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children (WISC-IV) and the Frostigs Developmental Test of Visual Perception (DTVP-2). Gross motor function was classified according to the GMFCS and functional activity was assessed with the Lincoln Oseretzky Motor Development Scale (LOS KF 18). Results: Outcome data were available for 79/105 children. 75.9% of the entire study cohort showed no or mild impairment. There was no difference seen between the two gestational age groups. Risk factors for moderate or severe impairment were an intracerebral haemorrhage >II° and/or periventricular leukomalacia or a retinopathy of prematurity >II°. Neither the gestational age nor the birth weight was associated with longterm outcome. Conclusions: Gestational age was not a predictor for longterm impairment of preterm infants born <25 completed weeks gestational age. Other prognostic factors should be taken into account for counselling in the grey zone of viability.
    The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine: the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians 12/2013; 27(16). DOI:10.3109/14767058.2013.871699 · 1.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We describe the setup of a neonatal quality improvement tool and list which peer-reviewed requirements it fulfils and which it does not. We report on the so-far observed effects, how the units can identify quality improvement potential, and how they can measure the effect of changes made to improve quality. Application of a prospective longitudinal national cohort data collection that uses algorithms to ensure high data quality (i.e. checks for completeness, plausibility and reliability), and to perform data imaging (Plsek's p-charts and standardized mortality or morbidity ratio SMR charts). The collected data allows monitoring a study collective of very low birth-weight infants born from 2009 to 2011 by applying a quality cycle following the steps [prime]guideline -- perform - falsify -- reform[prime]. 2025 VLBW live-births from 2009 to 2011 representing 96.1% of all VLBW live-births in Switzerland display a similar mortality rate but better morbidity rates when compared to other networks. Data quality in general is high but subject to improvement in some units. Seven measurements display quality improvement potential in individual units. The methods used fulfil several international recommendations. The Quality Cycle of the Swiss Neonatal Network is a helpful instrument to monitor and gradually help improve the quality of care in a region with high quality standards and low statistical discrimination capacity.
    BMC Pediatrics 09/2013; 13(1):152. DOI:10.1186/1471-2431-13-152 · 1.92 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For more than half a century neonatologists and ethicists alike have struggled with ethical dilemmas surrounding infants born at the limits of viability. Both doctors and parents face difficult decisions. Do we try to save these babies, knowing that such efforts are likely to be unsuccessful? Or do we provide only comfort care, knowing that, in doing so, you will inevitably allow some babies to die who might have been saved? In this paper, we review the outcome data on these babies and offer ten suggestions for doctors: (1) accept that there is a 'gray zone' during which decisions are not black and white; (2) do not place too much emphasis on gestational age; (3) dying is generally not in an infant's best interest; (4) impairment does not necessarily equal poor quality of life; (5) just because the train has left the station doesn't mean you can't get off; (6) respect powerful emotions; (7) be aware of the self-fulfilling prophecies; (8) time lag likely skews all outcome data; (9) statistics can be both confused and confusing; (10) never abandon parents.
    Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 08/2014; 19(5). DOI:10.1016/j.siny.2014.08.001 · 3.13 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
19 Downloads
Available from
May 19, 2014