Sunday, March 6, 2016

Does co-sleeping increase the risk of SIDS?


SIDS (Sudden infant death syndrome) is a sad and heartbreaking experience for any new mother. Imagine the joy of having a new baby only to lose it so tragically and unexpectedly. In the recent research article, “Autopsy findings of co-sleeping-associated sudden unexpected deaths in infancy: Relationship between pathological features and asphyxial mode of death”, Dr. Weber and colleagues highlight research done on the relationship between SIDS and asphyxial modes of death. (Weber, Risdon, Ashworth, Malone, & Sebire, 2011). Specifically, the researchers ask whether co-sleeping, where a parent sleeps with their infant, increases the risk of SIDS. In this study done over the course of 10 years in the U.K, autopsies were done on infants that had died of SIDS to see if they could find any causal factors, including co-sleeping.
The researchers did find that co-sleeping led to a 10% increase in a child’s risk of developing SIDS in comparison to infants that were not co-sleeping.  However, the relationship between SIDS and co-sleeping only seems to appear in the first 5 months of life. After the age of 5 months, there seems to be no difference between those babies that were introduced to co-sleeping and those that were not in terms of their SIDS risk.
Overall, co-sleeping can be said to be risky with babies under the age of 5 months, but after that there is no real differences between babies that were introduced to co-sleeping and those that were not. There are also other problems with co-sleeping that can have a big impact on the baby's health as well. Overall, the suggestion from these researchers is that if you’re going to co-sleep with your baby, wait until they are over 5 months old.

Weber, M. A., Risdon, R. A., Ashworth, M. T., Malone, M., & Sebire, N. J. (2012). Autopsy findings of cosleepingassociated sudden unexpected deaths in infancy: Relationship between pathological features and asphyxial mode of death. Journal Of Paediatrics And Child Health, 48(4), 335-341. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754.2011.02228.x 

No comments:

Post a Comment