Advertisement

International Journal of Legal Medicine

, Volume 118, Issue 3, pp 163–169 | Cite as

German study on sudden infant death (GeSID): design, epidemiological and pathological profile

  • M. Findeisen
  • M. Vennemann
  • B. BrinkmannEmail author
  • C. Ortmann
  • I. Röse
  • W. Köpcke
  • G. Jorch
  • T. Bajanowski
Original Article

Abstract

The German study on sudden infant death (GeSID) is a multi-centre case-control study aiming at the assessment of etiological factors and risk factors of SIDS. This report describes the study design and the methods applied and presents some general findings. Between 1998 and 2001, 455 cases of sudden and unexpected death of infants aged between 8 and 365 days were recruited into the study. The study comprised at least 11 out of the 16 German states with 18 centres involved. In 1999 and 2000, 75% of all SIDS cases registered with the Federal Office of Statistics (ICD 10/R95, n=384) in the study area were recruited into the study (n=286). A standardised autopsy including extended histology, microbiology, virology, toxicology and neuropathology investigations was carried out. Of the parents 82% (n=373) agreed to fill in an extensive questionnaire containing 120 questions reflecting all important aspects of the infant’s development. For each SIDS case, the parents of three living control infants were interviewed. These controls were matched for age, gender and region (n=1,118). The response rate of the controls was 58.7%. Data were linked with medical records obtained from obstetrics departments, the children’s hospitals, and general practitioners. Death scene investigation was performed in 4 study areas (cases: n=64, controls: n=191). All cases were classified into one of 4 categories using defined criteria: 7.3% of the children were assigned to category 1 (no pathological findings: SIDS), 61.1% to category 2 (minor findings: SIDS+), 20.4% to category 3 (severe findings: SIDS+) and 11.2% to category 4 (findings which explained the death: non-SIDS). In case conferences the previous history and circumstantial factors were included and an extended category (E-cat.) was defined. The consideration of these factors for the final classification is of great importance in the causal explanation of some cases. An analysis of 18 main variables in cases of categories 1–3 (SIDS) compared to the cases of category 4 (non-SIDS) showed significant differences for the sleeping position, coughing the day before death and breast-feeding indicating that the cases of both groups should be separated for further analyses.

Keywords

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) Standardised investigation protocol Pathological and extended categories Case-control study 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study is supported by the Federal German Ministry for Science and Education (01 ED 9401/8). We thank H. Hansen and E.A. Mitchell for acting as consultants as well as E. Müller and T. Butterfaß-Bahloul who worked as recorders. We thank the physicians of the health offices and the doctors of the children’s hospitals and the obstetric departments for sending us the clinical documents and all paediatricians and general practitioners for filling in the questionnaire. We also thank the 32 interviewers who undertook interviews during the 3 years of the study and Schwertner Field Research, Augsburg, for performing the fieldwork. We thank the police for supporting the parents and the study. We thank all the local registry offices for sending us the addresses of control families. Most importantly, the authors are indebted to the parents who participated in this study.

Supplementary material

Supplementary Material

supp.pdf (242 kb)
(PDF 243 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (2001) http://www.statistik-bund.deGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) (1997) Death by cause, age and sex in the years 1980–1997, Series A1 (in Dutch). Vorburg, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jorch G, Findeisen M, Brinkmann B et al. (1991) Bauchlage und plötzlicher Säuglingstod. Dtsch Arztebl 48:4266–4272Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Findeisen M, Jorch G (1991) Plötzlicher Säuglingstod: Epidemiologische Daten. Dokumentationsband Expertenhearing. MAGS-NRW, DüsseldorfGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mitchell EA, Scragg R, Stewart AW et al. (1991) Cot death supplement: results from the first year of the New Zealand cot death study. NZ Med J:71–76Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Jonge GA, Engelberts AC, Koomen-Liefting AJM, Kostense PJ (1989) Cot death and prone sleeping position in The Netherlands. BMJ 298:722PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fleming PJ, Gilbert R, Azaz Y et al. (1990) Interaction between bedding and sleeping position in the sudden infant death syndrome: a population based case control study. BMJ 301:85–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beal S (1989) Sleeping position and SIDS. Lancet ii:512Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schlaud M, Kleemann WJ, Poets CF, Sens B (1996) Smoking during pregnancy and poor antenatal care: two major preventable risk factors for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Int J Epidemiol 25:959–965PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leach CEA, Blair PS, Fleming PJ et al. (1999) Sudden unexpected deaths in infancy: similarities and differences in the epidemiology of SIDS and explained deaths. Pediatrics 104:e43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    L’Hoir MP, Engelberts AC, van Well GTJ et al. (1998) Case control study of current validity of previously described risk factors for SIDS in The Netherlands. Arch Dis Child 79:386–393PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wennergren G, Alm B, Øyen N et al. (1997) The decline in the incidence of SIDS in Scandinavia and its relation to risk-reduction campaigns. Acta Paediatr 86:963–968PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keil U (1985) MONICA Project Region Augsburg. Manual of Operations. GSF, MunichGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Winkler J (1998) Die Messung des sozialen Status mit Hilfe eines Index in den Gesundheitssurveys der DHP. RKI-Schriften 1:69–74Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brinkmann B (1999) Harmonisation of medico-legal autopsy rules. Int J Legal Med 113:1–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krous H (1996) Instruction and reference manual for the international standardised autopsy protocol for sudden unexpected infant death. J SIDS Infant Mortal 1:203–246Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L’Hoir MP, Engelberts AC, van Well GTJ, Bajanowski T, Helweg-Larsen K, Huber J (1998) Sudden unexpected death in infancy; epidemiology determined risk factors related to a pathology classification. Acta Paediatr 87:1279–1287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bajanowski T, Fürst P, Wilmers K, Beike J, Köhler H, Karger B, Brinkmann B (2001) Dioxin concentrations in infant tissue and sudden infant death. Int J Legal Med 116:27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schütz H, Machbert G (1988) Photometrische Bestimmung von Carboxy-Hämoglobin (CO-Hb) im Blut. Mitteilung VIII der Senatskommission für klinisch-toxikologische Analytik. VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Käferstein H, Sticht G, Staak M (1989) Vergleich verschiedener immunologischer Methoden mit einer Gc-MS Analyse. Beitr Gerichtl Med 47:115–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pavlic M, Haidekker A, Grubwieser P, Rabl W (2002) Fatal intoxication with omethoate. Int J Legal Med 116:238–241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Taylor EM, Emery JL (1990) Categories of preventable unexpected infant deaths. Arch Dis Child 65:535–539PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Slattery ML, Edwards SL, Caan BJ, Kerber RA, Potter JD (1995) Response rates among control subjects in case-control studies. Ann Epidemiol 5:245–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fleiss J (1981) Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Series in probability and mathematical statistics. Wiley, New York, pp 216–236Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Becroft DMO, Thompson JMD, Mitchell EA (1998) Epidemiology of intrathoracic petechial hemorrhages in sudden infant death syndrome. Pediatr Dev Pathol 1:200–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gibbons LE, Ponsonby A-L, Dwyer TA (1993) A comparison of prospective and retrospective responses on sudden infant death syndrome by case and control mothers. Am J Epidemiol 137:654–659PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Drews CD, Kraus JF, Greenland S (1990) Recall bias in a case-control study on SIDS. Int J Epidemiol 19:405–411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stang A, Ahrens W, Jöckel K-H (1999) Control response proportions in population-based case-control studies in Germany. Epidemiology 10:181–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ärztekammer Westfalen-Lippe (2001) Jahresauswertung 2001 GeburtshilfeGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gregersen M, Rajs J, Laurensen H et al. (1995) Pathological criteria for the Nordic study of SIDS. In: Rognum TO (ed) Sudden infant death syndrome. New trends in the nineties. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp 50–58Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gilbert R, Rudd P, Berry PJ et al. (1992) Combined effect of infection and heavy wrapping on the risk of sudden unexpected infant death. Arch Dis Child 67:171–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jorch G, Schmidt-Troschke S, Bajanowski T (1994) Epidemiologische Risikofaktoren des plötzlichen Kindstodes. Ergebnisse der westfälischen Kindstodsstudie 1990–1992. Monatsschr Kinderheilkd 142:45–51Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Findeisen
    • 1
  • M. Vennemann
    • 1
  • B. Brinkmann
    • 2
    Email author
  • C. Ortmann
    • 3
  • I. Röse
    • 4
  • W. Köpcke
    • 5
  • G. Jorch
    • 6
  • T. Bajanowski
    • 2
  1. 1.Study centre “Studie Plötzlicher Säuglingstod”University of MünsterMünsterGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Legal MedicineMünsterGermany
  3. 3.Institut for Legal MedicineUniversity of Jena
  4. 4.Institute for PathologyUniversity of Magdeburg
  5. 5.Department of Medical Informatics and BiomathematicsUniversity of Münster
  6. 6.Children’s HospitalUniversity of Magdeburg

Personalised recommendations