Literature DB >> 30251930

Conventional Autopsy versus Minimally Invasive Autopsy with Postmortem MRI, CT, and CT-guided Biopsy: Comparison of Diagnostic Performance.

Britt M Blokker1, Annick C Weustink1, Ivo M Wagensveld1, Jan H von der Thüsen1, Andrea Pezzato1, Ruben Dammers1, Jan Bakker1, Nomdo S Renken1, Michael A den Bakker1, Folkert J van Kemenade1, Gabriel P Krestin1, M G Myriam Hunink1, J Wolter Oosterhuis1.   

Abstract

Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of minimally invasive autopsy with that of conventional autopsy. Materials and Methods For this prospective, single-center, cross-sectional study in an academic hospital, 295 of 2197 adult cadavers (mean age: 65 years [range, 18-99 years]; age range of male cadavers: 18-99 years; age range of female cadavers: 18-98 years) who died from 2012 through 2014 underwent conventional autopsy. Family consent for minimally invasive autopsy was obtained for 139 of the 295 cadavers; 99 of those 139 cadavers were included in this study. Those involved in minimally invasive autopsy and conventional autopsy were blinded to each other's findings. The minimally invasive autopsy procedure combined postmortem MRI, CT, and CT-guided biopsy of main organs and pathologic lesions. The primary outcome measure was performance of minimally invasive autopsy and conventional autopsy in establishing immediate cause of death, as compared with consensus cause of death. The secondary outcome measures were diagnostic yield of minimally invasive autopsy and conventional autopsy for all, major, and grouped major diagnoses; frequency of clinically unsuspected findings; and percentage of answered clinical questions. Results Cause of death determined with minimally invasive autopsy and conventional autopsy agreed in 91 of the 99 cadavers (92%). Agreement with consensus cause of death occurred in 96 of 99 cadavers (97%) with minimally invasive autopsy and in 94 of 99 cadavers (95%) with conventional autopsy (P = .73). All 288 grouped major diagnoses were related to consensus cause of death. Minimally invasive autopsy enabled diagnosis of 259 of them (90%) and conventional autopsy 224 (78%); 200 (69%) were found with both methods. At clinical examination, the cause of death was not suspected in 17 of the 99 cadavers (17%), and 124 of 288 grouped major diagnoses (43%) were not established. There were 219 additional clinical questions; 189 (86%) were answered with minimally invasive autopsy and 182 (83%) were answered with conventional autopsy (P = .35). Conclusion The performance of minimally invasive autopsy in the detection of cause of death was similar to that of conventional autopsy; however, minimally invasive autopsy has a higher yield of diagnoses. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Krombach in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30251930     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018180924

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  12 in total

1.  Alternatives to vivisection: Scanning technologies replace and complement invasive autopsies.

Authors:  Philip Hunter
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 8.807

2.  2020 APHRS/HRS expert consensus statement on the investigation of decedents with sudden unexplained death and patients with sudden cardiac arrest, and of their families.

Authors:  Martin K Stiles; Arthur A M Wilde; Dominic J Abrams; Michael J Ackerman; Christine M Albert; Elijah R Behr; Sumeet S Chugh; Martina C Cornel; Karen Gardner; Jodie Ingles; Cynthia A James; Jyh-Ming Jimmy Juang; Stefan Kääb; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Andrew D Krahn; Steven A Lubitz; Heather MacLeod; Carlos A Morillo; Koonlawee Nademanee; Vincent Probst; Elizabeth V Saarel; Luciana Sacilotto; Christopher Semsarian; Mary N Sheppard; Wataru Shimizu; Jonathan R Skinner; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen; Dao Wu Wang
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 6.343

3.  2020 APHRS/HRS expert consensus statement on the investigation of decedents with sudden unexplained death and patients with sudden cardiac arrest, and of their families.

Authors:  Martin K Stiles; Arthur A M Wilde; Dominic J Abrams; Michael J Ackerman; Christine M Albert; Elijah R Behr; Sumeet S Chugh; Martina C Cornel; Karen Gardner; Jodie Ingles; Cynthia A James; Jyh-Ming Jimmy Juang; Stefan Kääb; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Andrew D Krahn; Steven A Lubitz; Heather MacLeod; Carlos A Morillo; Koonlawee Nademanee; Vincent Probst; Elizabeth V Saarel; Luciana Sacilotto; Christopher Semsarian; Mary N Sheppard; Wataru Shimizu; Jonathan R Skinner; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen; Dao Wu Wang
Journal:  J Arrhythm       Date:  2021-04-08

Review 4.  Cancer biology as revealed by the research autopsy.

Authors:  Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue; Chelsea Michael; Priscilla Baez; Rajya Kappagantula; Jody E Hooper; Travis J Hollman
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 60.716

5.  Hospital implementation of minimally invasive autopsy: A prospective cohort study of clinical performance and costs.

Authors:  Ivo M Wagensveld; M G Myriam Hunink; Piotr A Wielopolski; Folkert J van Kemenade; Gabriel P Krestin; Britt M Blokker; J Wolter Oosterhuis; Annick C Weustink
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-07-16       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Pathological analysis of cadavers for educational dissection by using postmortem imaging.

Authors:  Sakon Noriki; Satoshi Iino; Kazuyuki Kinoshita; Yugo Fukazawa; Kunihiro Inai; Toyohiko Sakai; Hirohiko Kimura
Journal:  Pathol Int       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 2.534

Review 7.  Ultrasound in legal medicine-a missed opportunity or simply too late? A narrative review of ultrasonic applications in forensic contexts.

Authors:  Dustin Möbius; Antonia Fitzek; Niels Hammer; Axel Heinemann; Alexandra Ron; Julia Schädler; Johann Zwirner; Benjamin Ondruschka
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 2.686

8.  Effect of minimally invasive autopsy and ethnic background on acceptance of clinical postmortem investigation in adults.

Authors:  I M Wagensveld; A C Weustink; J A Kors; B M Blokker; M G M Hunink; J W Oosterhuis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Clinical Relevance of Unexpected Findings of Post-Mortem Computed Tomography in Hospitalized Patients: An Observational Study.

Authors:  Max G Mentink; Bartholomeus G H Latten; Frans C H Bakers; Casper Mihl; Roger J M W Rennenberg; Bela Kubat; Paul A M Hofman
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-10-18       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  Flow field around bubbles on formation of air embolism in small vessels.

Authors:  Zhongnan Li; Guiling Li; Yongjian Li; Yuexin Chen; Jiang Li; Haosheng Chen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.