Resuscitation in the “Periviable” Period—Commentary of Opposing Views

Abstract

The periviable period is defined as delivery between 20 0/7 weeks and 25 6/7 weeks of gestation. It has long been considered a “gray area,” as there are still no clear guidelines on initial resuscitation and subsequent treatment of the newborn. This lack of guidance compounds the uncertainty in decision-making in low- and middle-income countries with limited resources. The decision to treat or not has far-reaching economic, social, cultural, and sometimes even religious implications for the parents and family. This review explores the perspectives of parents, caregivers, and policymakers in detail to utilize the existing evidence better. We present arguments for and against resuscitation in the periviable period, discussing concerns surrounding neurodevelopmental outcomes, cost, parental concerns, nonuniformity of evidence, and ethical considerations. A large survival gap exists between developed and developing countries, and the infrastructure and clinical care network in low- and middle-income country are not strong enough to provide adequate support for these infants and their families. Antenatal factors, socioeconomic and cultural issues, center capacity, and resuscitation capacity of birthing centers should be considered when making decisions. The neonatologists are expected to be impartial, provide information, and not advise based on their beliefs and outlook; while preserving the autonomy of parents. The only way forward is for parents and caregivers to work together to develop a logical and ethical approach that can be accepted as national and institutional policies.