| Literature DB >> 31598667 |
Natalia Rakislova1,2, Fabiola Fernandes3,4, Lucilia Lovane3, Luisa Jamisse3, Paola Castillo1,2, Ariadna Sanz1, Lorena Marimon1, Susan Jesri1, Melania Ferrando1, Vima Delgado1, Obdeningo Novela3, Venceslau Muiuane3, Mamudo R Ismail3,4, Cesaltina Lorenzoni3,4, Dianna M Blau5, Quique Bassat1,6,7,8,9, Clara Menéndez1,6, Sherif R Zaki10, Carla Carrilho3,4, Jaume Ordi1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS) is a simplified postmortem examination technique that has shown to be an adequate approach for cause of death investigation in low-resource settings. It requires relatively low level of infrastructures and can be performed by health professionals with no background in pathology. A training program has been developed for the Child Health and Mortality Prevention Surveillance (CHAMPS) network to guarantee standardization of specimen collection techniques, procedures, and laboratory methods.Entities:
Keywords: minimally invasive autopsy; standardization; training
Year: 2019 PMID: 31598667 PMCID: PMC6785668 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz565
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Infect Dis ISSN: 1058-4838 Impact factor: 9.079
Figure 1.Summary of the standard operating procedure, including all the main tasks to be done during the minimally invasive tissue sampling. Abbreviations: MITS, minimally invasive tissue sampling; MUAC, mid-upper arm circumference; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; SOP, standard operating procedure.
Figure 2.A, Minimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS) kit box including all the needles, tools, and containers required for MITS. B, Automatic needles used for the liver, lung, and central nervous system sampling. C, Prelabeled cryovials used for the tissue samples used for the microbiological analyses. D, Prelabeled containers with formalin used for the tissue samples used for histology.
Figure 3.Assessment and upgrading of the pathology laboratories and autopsy rooms in the Child Health and Mortality Prevention Surveillance project. A, Pathology laboratory of one of the sites as it was found during the assessment visit. B, Upgrading plan designed for the pathology laboratory includes a floor map indicating the location of the new equipment. C, Autopsy room of one of the sites as it was found during the assessment visit. D, New autopsy room after the upgrade. Abbreviation: UPS, uninterruptible power supply.
Background of Participants Attending Trainings on the Minimally Invasive Tissue Sampling Method and Histology Technique Conducted During the Preparatory Phase of Child Health and Mortality Prevention Surveillance
| Site | Participants in MITS Method/MITS Histology Courses | Additional Staff Trained in Initiation Visits | Pathologists | Other Physicians | Other Health Workers | Other Professionals | Laboratory Technicians |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bangladesh | 2/2 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 |
| Ethiopia | 2/2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Kenya | 2/2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Mali | 2/2 | 24 | 2 | 2 | 24 | 0 | 0 |
| Mozambique | 2/0 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| South Africa | 2/0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sierra Leone | 2/2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 14/10 | 39 | 6 | 12 | 32 | 3 | 10 |
Abbreviation: MITS, minimally invasive tissue sampling.
Quantity of the Collected Samples in the Minimally Invasive Tissue Sampling Procedures and Quality of the Produced Histological Slides in 4 of the Child Health and Mortality Prevention Surveillance Network Sites
| Site | Quantity of the Samples | Quality of the Slides | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Sample | Scant | Sufficient | Abundant | Not Evaluable | Poor | Acceptable | Excellent | |
| Bangladesh | 1 (4) | 6 (24) | 15 (60) | 3 (12) | 0 (0) | 1 (4) | 17 (68) | 7 (28) |
| Kenya | 3 (12) | 1 (4) | 8 (32) | 13 (52) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 19 (76) | 6 (24) |
| Mali | 4 (16) | 8 (32) | 9 (36) | 4 (16) | 1 (4) | 10 (40) | 14 (56) | 0 (0) |
| Mozambique | 3 (12) | 1 (4) | 9 (36) | 12 (48) | 0 (0) | 1 (4) | 23 (92) | 1 (4) |
| Total (n = 100) | 11% | 16% | 41% | 32% | 1% | 12% | 73% | 14% |
Data are presented as No. (%) unless otherwise indicated. Twenty-five digitized slides were randomly chosen for each site (n = 100 slides).
The quantity of the samples is categorized as (1) no sample (no targeted tissue identified); (2) scant (small specimens measuring in total <10 mm in length); (3) sufficient (specimens measuring in total 10–30 mm in length); and (4) abundant (specimens measuring in total >30 mm in length).
The quality of the slides is categorized as (1) not evaluable (slides of poor quality, completely preventing evaluation); (2) poor (evaluable, but showing marked artifacts hampering the evaluation; (3) acceptable (presence of artifacts that do not impair the histological evaluation); and (4) excellent (slides of good quality with no artifacts).
Figure 4.Representative photos of the scanned histological slides from different study sites. A and B, Excellent quality of the histopathological slides. C and D, Poor technical quality of the slides (extensive blurry areas hampering the evaluation).