To Sedate or Not to Sedate for Less Invasive Surfactant Administration: An Ethical Approach

Abstract

Less invasive surfactant administration (LISA) is an effective, minimally invasive technique of administering surfactant to infants with respiratory distress syndrome. While termed less invasive, LISA still requires airway instrumentation with direct laryngoscopy, thus may be considered painful. However, the issue of whether or not to routinely sedate infants for LISA remains contentious, with significant variation in practice between centres. Proponents for giving pharmacological analgesia and/or sedation predominantly focus on patient comfort during the procedure. However, those who favour non-pharmacological measures of pain management focus on the potential for procedural success without the risk of adverse events, such as respiratory depression and potentially the need for escalation to intubation, which may occur with pharmacological agents. The neonatal population who may benefit from LISA is varied. Due to this variety in presentation type, gestational age, and unit experience, there is a need to provide an individualized, tailored approach to sedation and analgesia for these infants. Using a blanket approach to sedation will lead to infants being exposed to sedative medications on the assumption of potential distress, rather than in response to signs of actual distress. This places the infant at risk of the adverse reactions, potentially without them ever having needed the beneficial effect of the medications. This seems an unnecessary risk. This article explores the ethical arguments pertaining to analgesia and sedation during the LISA technique, concluding that a standardized approach to the usage of pharmacological sedation is undesirable. Moreover, we maintain that procedural analgesia and sedation should be based on individualized, infant-centred assessment, rather than on a rigid, standardized approach.