Elsevier

Medical Hypotheses

Volume 143, October 2020, 109868
Medical Hypotheses

How might non nutritional sucking protect from sudden infant death syndrome

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109868Get rights and content

Abstract

Epidemiology has identified an association between the use of pacifiers and protection from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The use of pacifiers for SIDS prevention fails to gain adoption partly because there is no widely accepted physiologic mechanism to explain the epidemiologic association. Additionally, the scientific literature available on pacifier use focuses largely on the probable adverse effects. We hypothesize that pacifier use and all other forms of non-nutritional sucking (specifically digit sucking, also known as thumb sucking) is a life saving defense mechanism meant to splint open and stabilize the collapsible portion of the upper airway in infants. The main objective of this review article is to propose a mechanism to explain how pacifiers might help prevent SIDS. If the medical community accepts this mechanism, it can help promote pacifier use by the public and potentially reduce the incidence of SIDS.

Introduction

SIDS is defined as “The sudden and unexpected death of an infant younger than 1 year and usually beyond the immediate perinatal period, which remains unexplained after a thorough case investigation, including performance of a complete autopsy and review of the circumstances of death and of the clinical history. Onset of the lethal episode was presumably during sleep”.[1] The leading cause of mortality for children between the age of one month and one year, SIDS remains a diagnosis of exclusion. The variables associated with SIDS can be grouped in two categories: epidemiological and post-mortem findings[1]. In the autopsy there are “soft” findings that are consistently reported, which will be discussed later. The epidemiological variables can be grouped in three categories: prenatal, postnatal, and genetic/ demographic[1], [2]. The “triple risk” model is the leading theory to explain SIDS pathophysiology. It does not promote a single cause, instead it proposes “sudden death in SIDS results from the intersection of three overlapping factors: (1) a vulnerable infant; (2) a critical developmental period in homeostatic control, and (3) an exogenous stressor(s).” [3] The abovementioned epidemiological variables all fall under the “vulnerable infant” category when discussed within the triple risk model.

Pacifier use is the strongest protective factor found in the epidemiological studies for SIDS. It is noteworthy that sleep position recommendations, avoiding prone positioning, is grouped under risk factors for SIDS. The pacifier association has been described in numerous studies across countries, continents, and time.[4], [5], [6], [7] However, a universally accepted mechanism that explains how a pacifier could help prevent deaths in SIDS is lacking. There are well known adverse effects related to pacifier use including issues with odontogenesis,[8] lactation,[5], [9] and infection.[5], [10] Lacking a plausible mechanism to explain the protective effect of pacifier use in SIDS has fostered the notion that the relationship is casual rather than causal. The aforementioned coupled with recognized adverse consequences to the practice has hampered adoption of pacifiers as a SIDS prevention strategy.

We propose suction assisted, velo-glossal adherence mediated, pharyngeal airway stabilization as the mechanism to help explain the pacifier-SIDS association. Our hypothesis is based on the prolonged apnea theory and the following well described phenomena: negative pressure induced by suction on the pacifier (or digit sucking) leads to approximation and adherence of the anterior surface of the soft palate and the posterior surface of the tongue. This adherence immobilizes the soft palate and tongue, stabilizing the pharyngeal airway, thereby promoting the preferred nasal breathing route of infants.

Section snippets

Pacifier protective effect

The pacifier hypothesis was first brought up by Cozzi in 1979[11]. His hypothesis was modeled within the prolonged apnea theory[12], [13] which at the time it was believed infants were obligate nose breathers,[14] this was later disproved[15]. Cozzi proposed the vacuum induced, glossoptosis mediated airway collapse. According to his hypothesis a pacifier could help prevent airway collapse: “Sleeping infants sucking dummies do not respond to nasal occlusion with signs of pharyngeal obstruction

SIDS and sleep disordered breathing

The prolonged apnea theory had an uncontested title for SIDS pathophysiology for about 20 years, when a tragic event shattered its prominence. Steinschneider’s paper[13] basically established the apnea paradigm in the early 1970′s, one of its most dramatic aspects was the later death of two of his research subjects (siblings) who had prior history of “near- miss SIDS”. His paper suggested that “near miss” cases are at increased risk for future SIDS, that it had a familial component, and that it

The soft palate as a pivotal structure in SIDS

The soft palate can adopt three critical positions to act as a valve that directs airflow through the nasal route, neutral, or the buccal route (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).[29] The superior muscle group (tensor levi palitini, and levator veli palitini) is responsible for elevating the soft palate and obstructing the nasopharynx, promoting buccal breathing route. The inferior muscle group (palatoglossal, palatopharyngeal) is responsible for the approximation of the soft palate to the posterior aspect of

Suction assisted velo-glossal adhesion

Velo-glossal approximation and adhesion in infants is not a new concept.[30], [31] Awareness and understanding of the phenomena is also central to understanding our hypothesis. In adults the close apposition of the velum and the tongue directs the breathing route through the nose.[29] In 1975, Tonkin mentioned “There is quite a strong adherence of the tongue to the palate and in the sleeping infant, this suction must be broken before the mouth can be opened. Perhaps the length of the soft

Reconciliation with SIDS epidemiologic associations

Pacifiers do not remain in place throughout the entire period of sleep and are often found dislodged from the buccal cavity at the end of the sleep period. [5], [40] How then might pacifiers protect against SIDS? Velo-glossal adhesion explains why pacifiers have a protective effect after removal from the mouth. Suction establishes the adhesive seal between the soft palate and the posterior aspect of the tongue. Evidence of seal maintenance after pacifier removal is provided by Tonkin whom

Reconciliation with SIDS autopsy findings

Although autopsy findings are “soft” and ultimately SIDS continues to be a diagnosis of exclusion, Beckwith noted “the impressive repetitiveness of a narrow spectrum of minor changes lends great weight to an unitarian concept of SIDS.”[45] Petechiae in intrathoracic organs is the most common autopsy finding. This finding along with pulmonary congestion and edema are purported secondary to high intrathoracic negative pressure generated when breathing against an occluded airway[45]. However, the

The unstable airway model

We hypothesize that during sleep the infant has a preferred airway arrangement, which we will call the “stable airway,” that has a low risk for collapse. Soft palate disengagement from the tongue, a random event, leads to an “unstable airway.” The unstable airway is inherently at risk for collapse. The infant has salvage mechanisms that allow it to restore the stable airway arrangement. Cycling between stable airway and unstable airway is probably a relatively frequent event. In SIDS failure of

Conclusion

A large subgroup of SIDS cases (averaged at 60% as calculated by a meta analysis of 7 large epidemiological studies [7], and up to 90% according to one study[18]), have pathophysiology that intersects with the potential protective mechanism provided by pacifiers. We propose suction assisted velo-glossal adherence mediated pharyngeal airway stabilization as a mechanism to explain the SIDS protective association with pacifiers.

Given the very definition of SIDS, obtaining unequivocal proof of our

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

Akash P. Naidu: Diagnostic Radiology Department, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.

Afe Alexis: Internal Medicine Program, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.

Disclosure

The authors certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed

References (52)

  • F. Cozzi et al.

    Effect of pacifier use on oral breathing in healthy newborn infants

    Pediatr Pulmonol.

    (2002)
  • E.A. Mitchell et al.

    Should pacifiers be recommended to prevent sudden infant death syndrome?

    Pediatrics

    (2006)
  • M.M.T. Vennemann et al.

    Modifiable risk factors for SIDS in Germany: results of GeSID

    Acta Paediatr.

    (2005)
  • F.R. Hauck et al.

    Do pacifiers reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome?

    A meta-analysis. Pediatrics.

    (2005)
  • Ferrante A, Ferrante A. [Finger or thumb sucking. New interpretations and therapeutic implications]. Minerva Pediatr....
  • A. Callaghan et al.

    Association between pacifier use and breast-feeding, sudden infant death syndrome, infection and dental malocclusion

    Int J Evid Based Healthc.

    (2005)
  • J. Winberg

    Pacifier - Partner or peril?

    Acta Paediatr Int J Paediatr.

    (1999)
  • Cozzi F, Albani R, Cardi E. A common pathophysiology for sudden cot death and sleep apnoea. “The vacuum-glossoptosis...
  • J.R. Wright

    A Fresh Look at the History of SIDS

    Acad Forensic Pathol.

    (2017)
  • Steinschneider A. PROLONGED APNEA AND THE SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME: CLINICAL AND LABORATORY OBSERVATIONS....
  • K.W. Cross et al.

    Upper respiratory obstruction and cot death

    Arch Dis Child.

    (1971)
  • D.O. Rodenstein et al.

    Infants are not obligatory nasal breathers

    Am Rev Respir Dis.

    (1985)
  • E.A. Mitchell et al.

    Dummies and the sudden infant death syndrome

    Arch Dis Child.

    (1993)
  • E.A. Mitchell et al.

    Results from the first year of the New Zealand cot death study

    N Z Med J.

    (1991)
  • D.-K. Li et al.

    Use of a dummy (pacifier) during sleep and risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS): population based case-control study

    BMJ

    (2006)
  • Pinholster G. SIDS paper triggers a murder charge. Science (80-). 1994;264(5156):197-198....
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text