National Variability in Neonatal Resuscitation Practices at the Limit of Viability

Abstract

Objective Delivery room management of extremely premature infants is not subjected to professional regulations. In the United States, legal definitions of human viability and statutes regulating elective abortions vary by state, placing providers in an often difficult position regarding whether to attempt resuscitation when faced with the delivery of an infant of 22 to 25 weeks gestation. The objective of this study was to delineate variations in delivery room resuscitation practices of periviable infants in the United States in 2012.

Study Design Electronic survey was sent to the members of American Academy of Pediatrics Section of Perinatal Medicine. Chi-square, Fisher exact test, and multivariate logistic regression were performed.

Results A total of 758 surveys returned out of which 637 were complete. Overall 68% of providers consider 23-week gestation to be the youngest age that should be resuscitated at parental request, while 25-week gestation is considered by 51% to be the youngest age of obligatory resuscitation even with parental refusal. Responses varied when providers were separated into geographical regions based on the U.S. Census Bureau (p < 0.05). When provided with delivery room scenarios, parental preference significantly affected resuscitation attempts of 22 to 25 weeks, but not 26-week infants. In scenarios of periviable elective terminations, providers' personal belief systems influenced management of aborted fetuses.

Conclusions Regional practice variation exists independent of specific state laws. Parental request is the most important factor to providers resuscitating 22 to 25-week infants. Providers' personal belief systems influence infant management infrequently.

Keywords

extremely premature infants - practice variation - resuscitation - physician beliefs - physician religion

• References

• 1 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 (3) 519-526
• 2 Kaempf JW, Tomlinson M, Arduza C , et al. Medical staff guidelines for periviability pregnancy counseling and medical treatment of extremely premature infants. Pediatrics 2006; 117 (1) 22-29
• 3 Partridge JC, Freeman H, Weiss E, Martinez AM. Delivery room resuscitation decisions for extremely low birthweight infants in California. J Perinatol 2001; 21 (1) 27-33
• 4 Tucker Edmonds B, Fager C, Srinivas S, Lorch S. Racial and ethnic differences in use of intubation for periviable neonates. Pediatrics 2011; 127 (5) e1120-e1127
• 5 Hale TM, Arul M, Veerappan A , et al. Predicting survival of periviable fetuses using NICHD fetal heart rate categories. J Perinat Med 2011; 39 (1) 47-50
• 6 Janvier A, Barrington KJ. The ethics of neonatal resuscitation at the margins of viability: informed consent and outcomes. J Pediatr 2005; 147 (5) 579-585
• 7 Janvier A, Barrington KJ, Deschênes M, Couture E, Nadeau S, Lantos J. Relationship between site of training and residents' attitudes about neonatal resuscitation. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008; 162 (6) 532-537
• 8 Tucker Edmonds B, Krasny S, Srinivas S, Shea J. Obstetric decision-making and counseling at the limits of viability. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206 (3) e1-e5
• 9 Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
• 10 Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v Casey (91–744), 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
• 11 Arzuaga BH, Lee BH. Limits of human viability in the United States: a medicolegal review. Pediatrics 2011; 128 (6) 1047-1052
• 12 Sayeed SA. Baby doe redux? The Department of Health and Human Services and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: a cautionary note on normative neonatal practice. Pediatrics 2005; 116 (4) e576-e585
• 13 Janvier A, Leblanc I, Barrington KJ. The best-interest standard is not applied for neonatal resuscitation decisions. Pediatrics 2008; 121 (5) 963-969
• 14 Strong C. The neonatologist's duty to patient and parents. Hastings Cent Rep 1984; 14 (4) 10-16
• 15 O'Connor GT, Quinton HB, Traven ND , et al. Geographic variation in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. JAMA 1999; 281 (7) 627-633
• 16 Baicker K, Buckles KS, Chandra A. Geographic variation in the appropriate use of cesarean delivery. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006; 25 (5) w355-w367
• 17 Farrow DC, Hunt WC, Samet JM. Geographic variation in the treatment of localized breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1992; 326 (17) 1097-1101
• 18 Welch WP, Miller ME, Welch HG, Fisher ES, Wennberg JE. Geographic variation in expenditures for physicians' services in the United States. N Engl J Med 1993; 328 (9) 621-627
• 19 Miller v HCA, Inc, 118 S.W. 3d 758, 771 (Tex. 2003)
• 20 Montalvo v Borkovec, 647 N.W. 2d 413 (Wis.App. 2002)
• 21 Guttmacher Institute State Policies in Brief. An Overview of Abortion Laws as of March 8, 2013 http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf . Accessed March 22, 2013
• 22 Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 (“BAIPA” Pub.L. 107–207, 116 Stat. 926, enacted August 5, 2002, 1 U.S.C. § 8)
• 23 Preston v Meriter Hospital, Inc, 2004 WI App 61, 271 Wis. 2d 721, 678 N.W. 2d 347
• 24 Boyle D, Carlo WA, Goldsmith J , et al; American Academy of Pediatrics Neonatal Resuscitation Program Steering Committee. Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-207. Pediatrics 2003; 111 (3) 680-681
• 25 Partridge JC, Sendowski MD, Drey EA, Martinez AM. Resuscitation of likely nonviable newborns: would neonatology practices in California change if the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act were enforced?. Pediatrics 2009; 123 (4) 1088-1094
• 26 Waugh EH. The Islamic Tradition: Religious Beliefs and Healthcare Decisions. Park Ridge Center for the Study of Health, Faith and Ethics, Chicago, IL; 1999