Literature DB >> 11810118

Should we confirm our clinical diagnostic certainty by autopsies?

M Podbregar1, G Voga, B Krivec, R Skale, R Pareznik, L Gabrscek.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of diagnostic errors assessed by autopsies. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Retrospective review of medical and pathological records in an 11-bed closed medical intensive care unit (ICU) at a 860-bed general hospital. PATIENTS AND
INTERVENTIONS: Patients who died in the ICU between January 1998 and December 1999. Medical diagnoses were rated into three levels of clinical diagnostic certainty: complete certainty (group L1), minor diagnostic uncertainty (group L2), and major diagnostic uncertainty (group L3). The patients were divided into three error groups: group A, the autopsy confirmed the clinical diagnosis; group B, the autopsy demonstrated a new relevant diagnosis which would probably not have influenced the therapy and outcome; group C, the autopsy demonstrated a new relevant diagnosis which would probably have changed the therapy and outcome.
RESULTS: The overall mortality was 20.3% (270/1331 patients). Autopsies were performed in 126 patients (46.9% of deaths), more often in younger patients (66.6+/-13.9 years vs 72.7+/-12.0 years, p<0.001), in patients with shorter ICU stay (4.7+/-5.6 days vs 6.7+/-8.7 days, p=0.054), and in patients in group L3 without chronic diseases (15/126 vs 1/144, p<0.001). Fatal but potentially treatable errors [group C, 12 patients (9.5%)] were found in 8.7%, 10.0%, and 10.5% of patients in groups L1, L2, and L3, respectively (NS between groups). An ICU length of stay shorter than 24 h was not related to the frequency of group C errors.
CONCLUSIONS: Autopsies are performed more often in younger patients without chronic disease and in patients with a low clinical diagnostic certainty. No level of clinical diagnostic certainty could predict the pathological findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11810118     DOI: 10.1007/s00134-001-1129-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intensive Care Med        ISSN: 0342-4642            Impact factor:   17.440


  17 in total

1.  Is autopsy dead in the ICU?

Authors:  A Esteban; P Fernández-Segoviano
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2003-03-18       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Post mortem scientific sampling and the search for causes of death in intensive care: what information should be given and what consent should be obtained?

Authors:  J P Rigaud; J P Quenot; M Borel; I Plu; C Hervé; G Moutel
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Post mortem examination in the intensive care unit: still useful?

Authors:  George Dimopoulos; Michael Piagnerelli; Jacques Berré; Isabelle Salmon; Jean-Louis Vincent
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2004-10-07       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  The Value of Autopsy in Neonates in the 21st Century.

Authors:  Joline L H de Sévaux; Peter G J Nikkels; Maarten H Lequin; Floris Groenendaal
Journal:  Neonatology       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 4.035

5.  Monitoring mixed venous oxygen saturation in patients with obstructive shock after massive pulmonary embolism.

Authors:  Bojan Krivec; Gorazd Voga; Matej Podbregar
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2004-05-31       Impact factor: 1.704

6.  Causes of death in patients with rheumatoid arthritis autopsied during a 40-year period.

Authors:  R Koivuniemi; L Paimela; R Suomalainen; H Piirainen; M Karesoja; T Helve; M Leirisalo-Repo
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2008-08-21       Impact factor: 2.631

7.  Developing checklists to prevent diagnostic error in Emergency Room settings.

Authors:  Mark L Graber; Asta V Sorensen; Jon Biswas; Varsha Modi; Andrew Wackett; Scott Johnson; Nancy Lenfestey; Ashley N D Meyer; Hardeep Singh
Journal:  Diagnosis (Berl)       Date:  2014-06-19

Review 8.  Clinical review: What is the role for autopsy in the ICU?

Authors:  Greet Yvonne Agnes De Vlieger; Elien Marie Jeanne Lia Mahieu; Wouter Meersseman
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 9.097

9.  Should electronic differential diagnosis support be used early or late in the diagnostic process? A multicentre experimental study of Isabel.

Authors:  Matt Sibbald; Sandra Monteiro; Jonathan Sherbino; Andrew LoGiudice; Charles Friedman; Geoffrey Norman
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2021-10-05       Impact factor: 7.418

10.  Autopsy and pre-mortem diagnostic discrepancy review in an Irish tertiary PICU.

Authors:  Mark O'Rahelly; Michael McDermott; Martina Healy
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 3.183

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.