Skip to main content

Advertising Disclaimer »

Main menu

  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Editorial Policies
    • Open Access
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • Blog
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers
  • Other Publications
    • American Academy of Pediatrics

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Academy of Pediatrics

AAP Gateway

Advanced Search

AAP Logo

  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Editorial Policies
    • Open Access
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • Blog
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers
American Academy of Pediatrics
Commentary

But What Was “It”? Talking to Parents About BRUE

Amy M. DeLaroche and Manoj K. Mittal
Hospital Pediatrics July 2019, 9 (7) 566-568; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2019-0126
Amy M. DeLaroche
aDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Manoj K. Mittal
bDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
Loading
Download PDF

There has been a paradigm shift in pediatrics. In 1986, the concept of “near-miss sudden infant death syndrome” was replaced by the term “apparent life-threatening event” (ALTE).1 The goal was to clearly distinguish that which was uniformly fatal—sudden infant death syndrome—from that which was seldom so. Thirty years later, research has shown that ALTE is rarely life-threatening. Two prospective studies involving >1100 infants with ALTE found no mortality during hospitalization or within 72 hours of discharge from the emergency department.2,3 Thus, the terminology has changed again, and the concept of ALTE has been retired by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Now called a “brief resolved unexplained event” (BRUE), the wording is purposeful in its intent to highlight the benign nature of these events.4 Regardless of what they are called by clinicians and researchers, these events remain frightening and anxiety provoking for parents and caregivers. That is, after all, why they seek care for their infant.

Now, when infants come to medical attention after these odd events, clinicians call it a BRUE, which is exactly what the name implies: a transient alteration in an infant’s color, tone, mental status, or breathing whose etiology remains unclear after a detailed history and physical examination. These well-appearing infants are classified in the AAP clinical practice guideline (CPG) as being at lower or higher risk on the basis of patient and event characteristics. Those categorized as lower risk are extremely unlikely to have a recurrent event or a serious underlying diagnosis, so the CPG does not recommend broad diagnostic evaluation or routine hospitalization. The CPG does not make specific management-related recommendations for patients classified as higher risk.4 The move toward limited diagnostic evaluation and away from hospitalization signifies a shift from the historical approach to these patients, in which diagnostic evaluation was varied and hospitalization was common.5 Although clinicians are eager to optimize care for these infants and are incorporating the CPG into their institutional clinical care pathways, parents may be more reluctant to embrace the minimalistic approach advocated by the AAP. Yet, the concerns and expectations of caregivers have not really been explored.

In this issue of Hospital Pediatrics, Khan et al6 address this gap in the literature and provide insight into parents’ perceptions of a BRUE. In qualitative semistructured interviews exploring parents’ experiences with hospitalization after a BRUE, the authors identify that parents find hospitalization reassuring yet struggle with the uncertainty inherent in the diagnosis of a BRUE. Consequently, parents were ambivalent about being discharged from the hospital as they tried to balance their relief that no serious underlying diagnosis was identified with their worry that the event might recur.6 Collectively, these findings provide clinicians with important insights that could help shape their conversations with families regarding BRUEs.

Central to parents’ angst is concern over the unexplained nature of the event. As a parent stated, “I’m still gonna walk out of here a little iffy and confused on what really was it.”6 Parents, unfortunately, are not the only ones who are confused. Thought to reflect infant immaturity, the exact pathophysiology of these events remains unclear. As a result, ALTE and now BRUE describe a constellation of symptoms packaged as a diagnosis. Although research helps clinicians explain to parents what a BRUE is not, health care providers cannot yet say with certainty what it is, leaving parents to fear that “one day...he’s gonna be in a deep sleep, or I’m gonna check on him, and I’m not gonna have woken him up soon enough.”6 Rational or not, on the basis of the evidence, acknowledging these fears and framing the conversation with parents about BRUEs around these insecurities should be an important part of the dialogue. By shifting the focus away from what is unexplained to what is known—that the condition is not life-threatening and a serious underlying diagnosis or recurrent event is extremely unlikely—may help to decrease parental anxiety.

The feelings of unease reported by the families to Khan et al6 were offset, in part, by the reassurance afforded by hospitalization. Parents indicated that hospitalization provided a sense of safety and security because diagnostic testing helped “put this issue to rest,” and hospital monitoring enabled parents to “feel like they’re really watching” their infant.6 An important limitation of this study, however, is that all of the subjects were parents of hospitalized infants who were categorized as having a higher-risk BRUE. What about parents of infants categorized as lower risk, for whom testing is not indicated and hospitalization is not warranted? And where does this leave the parents of higher-risk infants who seem well enough to be discharged home from the emergency department? As research untangles the issues of the higher-risk group and the relative contribution of individual factors in determining risk becomes clearer, recommendations may begin to lean toward a more conservative approach for a subset of higher-risk patients as well. Thus, as we move away from evaluating and admitting the majority of infants with BRUEs, further work is needed to understand how a similar level of reassurance can be provided to caregivers without the testing and monitoring valued by parents.

At the conclusion of a medical encounter for a BRUE, our goal as clinicians is to help parents “feel ready to go home…relieved because nothing’s wrong.”6 This study highlights that parents feel safer in a medical setting6; thus, discharge instructions are an important component of empowering parents to care for their infant at home. In the case of BRUEs, further study is needed to better understand the usefulness of the discharge instructions advocated by the CPG. Parental anxiety may actually be heightened by some of the elements included, such as follow-up within 24 hours with the primary care provider and access to resources for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training.4 Pediatricians should advocate for CPR training for parents and caregivers as a general public health measure, and literature suggests that CPR training does not increase caregiver anxiety.7,8 However, those studies were conducted with families of patients at very high risk of cardiopulmonary collapse.8,9 When discharging infants with a benign condition that parents still fear is life-threatening, it is possible that for some parents, simultaneously providing resources for CPR training undermines the message that their infant is “fine.” Furthermore, encouraging families to seek an urgent follow-up appointment with the primary care provider underscores the seriousness of the event. Health care providers need to be cognizant that these mixed messages may impede clear communication with parents about the benign nature of a BRUE.

As our understanding of BRUEs continues to evolve, the results of this study by Khan et al6 highlight that a key component of the care provided to patients and families after a BRUE focuses on the parent, but how to best meet their needs remains unclear.

Footnotes

  • Opinions expressed in these commentaries are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the American Academy of Pediatrics or its Committees.

  • FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

  • FUNDING: No external funding.

  • POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

  • Accepted May 3, 2019.

References

  1. ↵
    American Academy of Pediatrics. National Institutes of Health consensus development conference on infantile apnea and home monitoring, Sept 29 to Oct 1, 1986. Pediatrics. 1987;79(2):292–299
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Mittal MK,
    2. Sun G,
    3. Baren JM
    . A clinical decision rule to identify infants with apparent life-threatening event who can be safely discharged from the emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2012;28(7):599–605
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Kaji AH,
    2. Claudius I,
    3. Santillanes G,
    4. et al
    . Apparent life-threatening event: multicenter prospective cohort study to develop a clinical decision rule for admission to the hospital. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;61(4):379–387.e4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Tieder JS,
    2. Bonkowsky JL,
    3. Etzel RA,
    4. et al
    ; Subcommittee on Apparent Life-Threatening Events. Brief resolved unexplained events (formerly apparent life-threatening events) and evaluation of lower-risk infants [published correction appears in Pediatrics. 2016;138(2):e20161487]. Pediatrics. 2016;137(5):e20160590
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Tieder JS,
    2. Cowan CA,
    3. Garrison MM,
    4. Christakis DA
    . Variation in inpatient resource utilization and management of apparent life-threatening events. J Pediatr. 2008;152(5):629–635, 635.e1–635.e2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Khan A,
    2. Wallace S,
    3. Sampayo E,
    4. et al
    . Caregivers’ perceptions and hospital experience after a brief resolved unexplained event: a qualitative study. Hosp Pediatr. 2019;9(7)
  7. ↵
    1. Knapp JF,
    2. Pyles LA
    . American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine. Role of pediatricians in advocating life support training courses for parents and the public. Pediatrics. 2004;114(6):1617
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. McLauchlan CA,
    2. Ward A,
    3. Murphy NM,
    4. Griffith MJ,
    5. Skinner DV,
    6. Camm AJ
    . Resuscitation training for cardiac patients and their relatives—its effect on anxiety. Resuscitation. 1992;24(1):7–11
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Higgins SS,
    2. Hardy CE,
    3. Higashino SM
    . Should parents of children with congenital heart disease and life-threatening dysrhythmias be taught cardiopulmonary resuscitation? Pediatrics. 1989;84(6):1102–1104
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  • Copyright © 2019 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

Advertising Disclaimer »

In this issue

Hospital Pediatrics: 9 (7)
Hospital Pediatrics
Vol. 9, Issue 7
1 Jul 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
View this article with LENS
PreviousNext
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Academy of Pediatrics.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
But What Was “It”? Talking to Parents About BRUE
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Academy of Pediatrics
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Academy of Pediatrics web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Request Permissions
Article Alerts
Log in
You will be redirected to aap.org to login or to create your account.
Or Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
But What Was “It”? Talking to Parents About BRUE
Amy M. DeLaroche, Manoj K. Mittal
Hospital Pediatrics Jul 2019, 9 (7) 566-568; DOI: 10.1542/hpeds.2019-0126

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
But What Was “It”? Talking to Parents About BRUE
Amy M. DeLaroche, Manoj K. Mittal
Hospital Pediatrics Jul 2019, 9 (7) 566-568; DOI: 10.1542/hpeds.2019-0126
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Print
Download PDF
Insight Alerts
  • Table of Contents

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • PHM Fellowships: Advanced Training for an Evolving Field
  • Asthma to EVALI: Tobacco Use Is a Pediatric Problem
  • COVID-19 and Kawasaki Disease: Finding the Signal in the Noise
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Hospital Medicine
    • Hospital Medicine
  • Emergency Medicine
    • Emergency Medicine
  • Journal Info
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Policies
  • Overview
  • Licensing Information
  • Authors/Reviewers
  • Author Guidelines
  • Reviewer Guidelines
  • Submit My Manuscript
  • Open Access
  • Librarians
  • Institutional Subscriptions
  • Usage Stats
  • Support
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Resources
  • Media Kit
  • About
  • International Access
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Statement
  • FAQ
  • RSS Feeds
  • shopAAP
  • AAP.org
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Instagram
  • Visit American Academy of Pediatrics on Facebook
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Twitter
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Youtube
American Academy of Pediatrics

© 2021 American Academy of Pediatrics