Volume 218 - Issue 6

Serious gaps in the investigation of sudden unexpected deaths in infancy in Australia

Author:  Paul N Goldwater

Med J Aust 2023; 218 (6): 252-253. || doi: 10.5694/mja2.51884
Published online: 3 April 2023

SUDI investigations should be led by coroners, supported by experienced paediatric pathologists

Jeffery and colleagues examined how sudden unexpected deaths in infancy (SUDI) are investigated in Australia in a questionnaire‐based study,1 reported in this issue of the MJA. They unsurprisingly exposed gaps in the process and unsuitable approaches to investigating these deaths. As Jeffery and colleagues note, the definition of SUDI encompasses all cases in which an infant dies (or suffers a collapse that leads to death) before the age of twelve months, the death could not have been anticipated 24 hours earlier, and no medical cause is apparent. The SUDI definition includes all such deaths, whether they are subsequently explained or not, and thus encompasses sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), a diagnosis that requires a complete investigation, including history, death scene investigation, and full autopsy. In the absence of generally recognised causes, the investigation of SUDI is a special situation: each case is a subject of research or a problem to be solved.

Most cases in Australia fall within the purview of the police and the state coroner. While their questionnaire methodology had inherent limitations, Jeffery and colleagues found that police‐led investigation fell short of evidence‐based standards. Obvious problems are related to inadequate resources and the lack of a national approach to investigating unexpected deaths in infancy, including a national autopsy protocol. In some states, forensic institutions perform autopsies under the jurisdiction of the coroner. Only one employs a paediatric pathologist for this purpose, despite the fact that SUDI autopsy is a specialist procedure. Problems arise when pathologists without relevant specialist expertise overlook key aspects or misinterpret important findings; this can result in unsafe legal outcomes.

In 1989, the late SIDS expert forensic pathologist Professor John Hilton discussed the fact that the investigation of SIDS is encumbered by unusual limitations.2 These limitations are pertinent to the study by Jeffery and colleagues, including ethical questions regarding consent for obtaining and retaining tissue, and difficulty in obtaining suitable control material for meaningful research.

The specific causes of many cases of SUDI and SIDS remain unknown, despite the resources of 21st century science. Limitations to their investigation may play a role, but there are a number of plausible research hypotheses, especially that centred on the homeostatic control of breathing, arousal, and cardiac function.3 However, it is worrying that few neuropathological or neurotransmitter findings have been linked with SIDS risk factors.4 In contrast, the list of risk factors linked with infection‐based hypotheses (eg, the bacterial toxin hypothesis)5,6 is extensive,7,8 especially strong associations with prone sleeping and the type of sleeping surface.9,10,11 Achieving clarification may require, as demanded by Jeffery and colleagues, the implementation of core components of international standards, such as those recommended by the Kennedy Report,12 including a standardised autopsy protocol. Doing so would maximise the probability that the cause of death is elucidated, and ensure that risk factors are identified, parents and families receive immediate and ongoing support, and the consequences of incorrect diagnosis are avoided. SUDI investigations should be led by coroners, supported by experienced paediatric pathologists playing pivotal roles. A national database of SUDI data could also be helpful for research and monitoring standards, but this will require dedicated financial support.



Author


Competing interests


References


Provenance: Commissioned, not externally reviewed.