Abstract

Professional statements guide neonatal resuscitation thresholds at the border of viability. A 2015 systematic review of international guidelines by Guillen et al. found considerable variability between statements’ clinical recommendations for infants at 23–24 weeks gestational age (GA). The authors concluded that differences in the type of data included were one potential source for differing resuscitation thresholds within this “ethical gray zone.” How statements present ethical considerations that support their recommendations, and how this may account for variability, has not been as rigorously explored. We performed a mixed-methods exploratory analysis of 25 current international guidelines for neonatal resuscitation at 22+0−25+0 weeks GA. Qualitative analysis using a modified grounded theory yielded 34 distinct codes, eight categories, and four overarching themes. Three themes, consequentialism, principlism, and rights-based, consisted of concepts central to these ethical frameworks. The fourth theme, clinical reasoning, described counseling practices, medical management, outcomes data, and prognostic uncertainty, without any ethical context. The theme of clinical reasoning appeared in 22 of 25 guidelines. Ten guidelines lacked any ethical theme. Guidelines with an identified ethical theme were more likely to recommend comfort care than guidelines without an identified ethical theme, and recommended it at a higher average GA (22.7 weeks vs. 22.0 weeks, p = 0.03). Thus, how ethical concepts are incorporated into guidelines potentially impacts resuscitation thresholds. We argue that inclusion of explicit discussion of ethical considerations surrounding resuscitation in the “gray zone” would clarify values that inform recommendations and facilitate discussions about how neonatology ought to approach periviability as outcomes continue to evolve.