Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy (SUDI) &amp;#x2014; The Role of the Pathologist

Byard, Roger W.

doi:10.2174/157339610791317223

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even with similar SIDS definitions, significant differences are reported, although studies with high concordance among pathologists have been reported [15,20]. With the decline SIDS cases, it would be appropriate for pathologists to select standard definitions, to use established protocols (including death scene examinations), and to also participate in multidisciplinary discussions where significant clinical and other information will be available to enable the most appropriate classifications to be made [13,[22][23][24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a consequence, comparisons among different countries or even between institutions in the same country should never be carried out without ensuring that a uniform classification of SIDS cases has been followed, or preferably only if cases have been reclassified according to uniform criteria. Currently these issues make the assessments of the true differences in SIDS incidence between Western countries difficult, with even more problems with comparisons involving the rest of the world [13]. This is a major deficiency in SIDS research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reclassification of SIDS cases—a need for adjustment of the San Diego classification?

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study was undertaken reclassifying cases of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) taken from two geographically separate locations utilizing the San Diego definition with subclassifications. One hundred twenty-eight infant cases were examined from files at Forensic Science South Australia in Adelaide, SA, Australia over a 7.5-year period from July 1999 to January 2007. Thirty-one cases (24%) had initially been diagnosed as SIDS and 30 (23%) as undetermined while 67 (52%) had an explainable cause of death. After reclassification, the number of SIDS cases had increased to 49 of the 128 cases, now representing 38% of the cases; category IB SIDS constituted 10 (20%) and II SIDS 39 (80%) of the SIDS cases. No cases were classified as IA SIDS. Two hundred eighteen infant cases were identified from the files of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Aarhus University, Denmark over a 16-year period from 1992 to 2007. Eighty-two (38%) were originally diagnosed as SIDS, 128 (59%) with identifiable causes of death, and 8 (4%) as unexplained. After review, 77 (35%) cases were reclassified as SIDS, a decrease of 6%. Twenty (26%) infants were classified as category IB SIDS and 57 (74%) as II SIDS. None of the cases met the criteria for IA SIDS. Problems arose in assessing cases with failure to thrive, fever, and possible asphyxia. Modifications to the San Diego subclassifications might improve the consistency of categorizing these cases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reclassification of SIDS cases—a need for adjustment of the San Diego classification?

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SIDS is not to be confused with “sudden and unexpected death in infancy” (SUDI), or “sudden unexpected infant death” (SUID), which is a general term referring to all infant deaths that are sudden and unexpected, not just to those that meet the definition of SIDS [4, 10]. Even more than SIDS, SUDI is an umbrella label.…”

Section: Sudden Infant Death Syndromementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even more than SIDS, SUDI is an umbrella label. As with SIDS, the use of the term SUDI is variable and efforts are undertaken to standardize the definition of SUDI [10–12]. A further term in use is postneonatal mortality (PNM), which simply refers to the death of liveborn infants from 28 through 364 days of age.…”

Section: Sudden Infant Death Syndromementioning

confidence: 99%

Cardiac Ion Channelopathies and the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

Wilders

2012

ISRN Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) causes the sudden death of an apparently healthy infant, which remains unexplained despite a thorough investigation, including the performance of a complete autopsy. The triple risk model for the pathogenesis of SIDS points to the coincidence of a vulnerable infant, a critical developmental period, and an exogenous stressor. Primary electrical diseases of the heart, which may cause lethal arrhythmias as a result of dysfunctioning cardiac ion channels (“cardiac ion channelopathies”) and are not detectable during a standard postmortem examination, may create the vulnerable infant and thus contribute to SIDS. Evidence comes from clinical correlations between the long QT syndrome and SIDS as well as genetic analyses in cohorts of SIDS victims (“molecular autopsy”), which have revealed a large number of mutations in ion channel-related genes linked to inheritable arrhythmogenic syndromes, in particular the long QT syndrome, the short QT syndrome, the Brugada syndrome, and catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. Combining data from population-based cohort studies, it can be concluded that at least one out of five SIDS victims carries a mutation in a cardiac ion channel-related gene and that the majority of these mutations are of a known malignant phenotype.

show abstract

“…SUDI occurs in pēpē aged under 1 year and usually during sleep. 16 SUDI includes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Deaths from SIDS remain unexplained despite a thorough investigation involving a complete autopsy, review of the circumstances of death, a scene examination, and comprehensive clinical history.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pēpē‐infant sleep practices and sudden unexpected death in infancy in Aotearoa New Zealand

MacFarlane

Thompson

Mitchell

et al. 2021

Intl J Gynecology & Obste

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To explore pēpē [infant] sleep practices and the key motivators among selected Māori and non‐Māori māmā [mothers] in Auckland, New Zealand, in relation to the risk of sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI). Methods Qualitative research underpinned by a kaupapa Māori cultural framework was undertaken. In‐depth face‐to‐face interviews occurred in the homes of māmā with young pēpē born in Counties Manukau, Auckland. Interview transcripts were analyzed using general purpose thematic analysis. Results Thirty māmā participated, including 17 Māori. Two‐thirds of māmā reported previous or current bed sharing. The fundamental human need for adequate sleep motivated half the māmā in the present study, and especially Māori māmā, to bed share. The second most common reason given was closeness and convenience. This was followed by breastfeeding, which was cited as a reason by Māori māmā only. These findings were interpreted in terms of intrinsic fear, culture, and māmā deployment of knowledge. Conclusion Service providers are encouraged to respond to the lived experiences and cultural realities, values, and beliefs of māmā when designing and delivering effective SUDI prevention interventions. Innovative approaches for providing structured and opportunistic, culturally appropriate education and support around safe sleep are likely to be well‐received by māmā and their whānau [family/ies].

show abstract

Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy (SUDI) — The Role of the Pathologist

Cited by 11 publications

References 85 publications

Reclassification of SIDS cases—a need for adjustment of the San Diego classification?

Reclassification of SIDS cases—a need for adjustment of the San Diego classification?

Cardiac Ion Channelopathies and the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

Pēpē‐infant sleep practices and sudden unexpected death in infancy in Aotearoa New Zealand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About