A new individualized prognostic approach to the management of women at risk of extreme preterm birth in France: Effect on neonatal outcome

Adults born prematurely prefer a periviability guideline that considers multiple prognostic factors beyond gestational age

AIM

The aim of the study was to explore the perspectives of adults born prematurely on guidelines for management at extreme premature birth and personalisation at the limit of viability.

METHODS

We conducted four 2-h online focus group interviews in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

Twenty-three participants born prematurely were included in this study, ranging in age from 19 to 56 years and representing a variety of health outcomes. Participants shared their perspectives on different types of guidelines for managing extremely premature birth. They agreed that a guideline was necessary to prevent arbitrary treatment decisions and to avoid physician bias. All participants favoured a guideline that is based upon multiple prognostic factors beyond gestational age. They emphasised the importance of discretion, regardless of the type of guideline used. Discussions centred mainly on the heterogeneity of value judgements about outcomes after extreme premature birth. Participants defined personalisation as 'not just looking at numbers and statistics'. They associated personalisation mainly with information provision and decision-making. Participants stressed the importance of involving families in decision-making and taking their care needs seriously.

CONCLUSION

Adults born prematurely prefer a periviability guideline that considers multiple prognostic factors and allows for discretion.

Ethical Dilemmas in Neonatal Care at the Limit of Viability

Advances in neonatal care have pushed the limit of viability to incrementally lower gestations over the last decades. However, surviving extremely premature neonates are prone to long-term neurodevelopmental handicaps. This makes ethics a crucial dimension of periviable birth management. At 22 weeks, survival ranges from 1 to 15%, and profound disabilities in survivors are common. Consequently, there is no beneficence-based obligation to offer any aggressive perinatal management. At 23 weeks, survival ranges from 8 to 54%, and survival without severe handicap ranges from 7 to 23%. If fetal indication for cesarean delivery appears, the procedure may be offered when neonatal resuscitation is planned. At a gestational age ≥24 weeks, up to 51% neonates are expected to survive the neonatal period. Survival without profound neurologic disability ranges from 12 to 38%. Beneficence-based obligation to intervene is reasonable at these gestations. Nevertheless, autonomy of parents should also be respected, and parental consent should be sought prior to any intervention. Optimal counselling of parents involves harmonized cooperation of obstetric and neonatal care providers. Every fetus/neonate and every pregnant woman are different and have the right to be considered individually when treatment decisions are being made.

Changes Overtime in Perinatal Management and Outcomes of Extremely Preterm Infants in One Tertiary Care Romanian Center

Background and Objectives: Extremely preterm infants were at increased risk of mortality and morbidity. The purpose of this study was to: (1) examine changes over time in perinatal management, mortality, and major neonatal morbidities among infants born at 25⁰–28⁶ weeks’ gestational age and cared for at one Romanian tertiary care unit and (2) compare the differences with available international data. Material and Methods: This study consisted of infants born at 25⁰–28⁶ weeks in one tertiary neonatal academic center in Romania during two 4-year periods (2007–2010 and 2015–2018). Major morbidities were defined as any of the following: severe intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), severe retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). Adjusted logistic regression models examined the association between the mortality and morbidity outcome and the study period. Results: The two cohorts differed with respect to antenatal antibiotics and rates of cesarean birth but had similar exposure to antenatal steroids and newborn referral to the tertiary care center. In logistic regression analyses, infants in the newer compared to the older cohort had a lower incidence of death (OR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.11–0.35), a lower incidence of IVH (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.15–0.46), and increased incidence of NEC (OR: 19.37; 95% CI: 2.41–155.11). Conclusions: Changes over time included higher use of antenatal antibiotics and cesarean delivery and no change in antenatal steroids administration. Overall mortality was lower in the newer cohort, especially for infants 25⁰–26⁶ weeks’ gestation, NEC was higher while BPD and ROP were not different.

Neonatal Outcome and Treatment Perspectives of Preterm Infants at the Border of Viability

Decision-making at the border of viability remains challenging for the expectant parents and the medical team. The preterm infant is dependent on others making the decision that will impact them for a lifetime in hopefully their best interest. Besides survival and survival without neurodevelopmental impairment, other relevant outcome measures, such as the quality of life of former preterm infants and the impact on family life, need to be integrated into prenatal counselling. Recommendations and national guidelines continue to rely on arbitrarily set gestational age limits at which treatment is not recommended, can be considered and it is recommended. These guidelines neglect other individual prognostic outcome factors like antenatal steroids, birth weight and gender. Besides individual factors, centre-specific factors like perinatal treatment intensity and the attitude of healthcare professionals significantly determine the futures of these infants at the border of viability. A more comprehensive approach regarding treatment recommendations and relevant outcome measures is necessary.