Original Article
Journal of Perinatology (2008) 28, S4–S8; doi:10.1038/jp.2008.42
Limits of viability: definition of the gray zone
- 1Center for Fetal and Neonatal Medicine and the USC Division of Neonatal Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Childrens Hospital Los Angeles and Women's and Children's Hospital of the LAC+USC Medical Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- 2Division of Neonatology, Department of Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Correspondence: Dr I Seri, Division of Neonatal Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Childrens Hospital Los Angeles and Women's and Children's Hospital of the LAC+USC Medical Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of California, 4650 Sunset Blvd; MS no. 31, Los Angeles, CA 90027, USA. E-mail: iseri@chla.usc.edu
Abstract
Introduction:
As survival and long-term morbidity of very preterm infants have improved over the past decade, the limits of infant viability, the level of maturity below which survival and/or acceptable neurodevelopmental outcome are extremely unlikely, have also decreased.
Study Design:
In an effort to define the current limits of infant viability, the data in the literature on survival and long-term neurodevelopmental outcome in very preterm neonates have been reviewed.
Result:
The gestational age and birth weight below which infants are too immature to survive, and thus provision of intensive care is unreasonable, appears to be at <23 weeks and <500 g, respectively. Infants born at
25 weeks' gestation and with a birth weight of
600 g are mature enough to warrant initiation of intensive care, as the majority of these patients survive, and at least 50%
do so without severe long-term disabilities. Finally, for infants born between 230/7 and 246/7 weeks' gestation and with a birth weight of 500 to 599 g, survival and outcome are extremely uncertain. For these infants born in the so-called 'gray zone' of infant viability, the line between patient autonomy and medical futility is blurred, and medical decision-making becomes even more complex and needs to embrace careful consideration of several factors. These factors include appraisal of prenatal data and the information obtained during consultations with the parents before delivery; evaluation of the patient's gestational age, birth weight and clinical condition upon delivery; ongoing reassessment of the patient's response to resuscitation and intensive care and continued involvement of the parents in the decision-making process after delivery.
Conclusion:
Based on these findings an algorithm is offered for consideration for neonatologists managing infants born in the 'gray zone' of infant viability. However, caution must be exercised when one considers incorporating this guideline into clinical practice because the algorithm is based on the analysis of the findings in the literature and the authors' experience rather than direct evidence.
Keywords:
neurodevelopmental outcome, grayzone, qualitative benefit, infant viability, evidence- and nonevidence-based algorithm
MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS
These links to content published by NPG are automatically generated
NEWS AND VIEWS
Pain, plasticity, and premature birth: a prescription for permanent suffering?
Nature Medicine News and Views (01 Sep 2000)
RESEARCH
Journal of Perinatology Original Article
Segmental Arterial Mediolysis in a Preterm
Journal of Perinatology Correspondence
Technique for Intrapartum Administration of Surfactant without Requirement for an Endotracheal Tube
Journal of Perinatology Original Article
