Do we still need autopsies?

Who is at risk for diagnostic discrepancies? Comparison of pre- and postmortal diagnoses in 1800 patients of 3 medical decades in East and West Berlin

BACKGROUND

Autopsy rates in Western countries consistently decline to an average of <5%, although clinical autopsies represent a reasonable tool for quality control in hospitals, medically and economically. Comparing pre- and postmortal diagnoses, diagnostic discrepancies as uncovered by clinical autopsies supply crucial information on how to improve clinical treatment. The study aimed at analyzing current diagnostic discrepancy rates, investigating their influencing factors and identifying risk profiles of patients that could be affected by a diagnostic discrepancy.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Of all adult autopsy cases of the Charité Institute of Pathology from the years 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003 and 2008, the pre- and postmortal diagnoses and all demographic data were analyzed retrospectively. Based on power analysis, 1,800 cases were randomly selected to perform discrepancy classification (class I-VI) according to modified Goldman criteria. The rate of discrepancies in major diagnoses (class I) was 10.7% (95% CI: 7.7%-14.7%) in 2008 representing a reduction by 15.1%. Subgroup analysis revealed several influencing factors to significantly correlate with the discrepancy rate. Cardiovascular diseases had the highest frequency among class-I-discrepancies. Comparing the 1988-data of East- and West-Berlin, no significant differences were found in diagnostic discrepancies despite an autopsy rate differing by nearly 50%. A risk profile analysis visualized by intuitive heatmaps revealed a significantly high discrepancy rate in patients treated in low or intermediate care units at community hospitals. In this collective, patients with genitourinary/renal or infectious diseases were at particularly high risk.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the current largest and most comprehensive study on diagnostic discrepancies worldwide. Our well-powered analysis revealed a significant rate of class-I-discrepancies indicating that autopsies are still of value. The identified risk profiles may aid both pathologists and clinicians to identify patients at increased risk for a discrepant diagnosis and possibly suboptimal treatment intra vitam.

Virtopsy versus digital autopsy: virtual autopsy

Multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are being increasingly implemented in forensic pathology. These methods may serve as an adjuvant to classic forensic autopsies. Imaging of the interior of corpses is performed using MSCT and/or MRI. MRI, in addition, is also well suited to the examination of surviving victims of assault, especially choking, and helps visualise internal injuries sometimes not seen on external examination of the victim. Various postprocessing techniques can provide strong forensic evidence for use in legal proceedings. The documentation and analysis of postmortem findings with MSCT and MRI and postprocessing techniques (virtopsy) is investigator independent, objective and noninvasive and will lead to qualitative improvements in forensic pathologic investigation. Apart from the accuracy and three dimensionality that conventional documentations lack, these techniques allow for the re-examination of the corpse and the crime scene even decades later, after burial of the corpse and liberation of the crime scene. We believe that this virtual, noninvasive or minimally invasive approach will improve forensic medicine in the near future.

Rural versus urban trauma: demographic influences on autopsy rates

BACKGROUND

The autopsy has long been considered the gold standard for quality assurance review. Studies characterizing autopsies have been completed in large urban centers, but there is a paucity of research regarding autopsies at rural trauma centers. This is problematic considering that a majority of preventable trauma deaths occur in rural areas and death rates for unintentional injuries in rural populations are higher than urban populations. Rural trauma centers have differing characteristics warranting further research into the demographic differences between rural and urban trauma patients and the effects on autopsy rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a demographic study of a rural trauma center, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC), with the goal of identifying characteristics of trauma patients on whom autopsy was performed. Four hundred ninety-six deaths were identified from the trauma registry between January 2002 and May 2007 (231 of which were autopsied) and demographic data (including age, race, length of hospital stay, etc.) regarding these patients was gathered into a database. Univariate and multivariate linear regression models were used to analyze differences between autopsied and non-autopsied trauma patients. Autopsy rate and basic demographics were also compared with 2 recent reports from urban trauma centers.

RESULTS

Autopsied patients were younger than non-autopsied patients (mean age 45 y versus 71 y; P < 0.0001) and have a shorter median length of hospital stay (1 d versus 4 d; P < 0.0001). Autopsy rates for patients with blunt trauma were lower than rates for patients with penetrating or burn trauma (42% versus 67% and 56%; P = 0.004). If patients died while on a subspecialty service, they were less likely to have an autopsy. Compared with urban centers, this rural trauma center had lower autopsy rates, higher rates of blunt trauma, a higher mean age of deceased patients, and a lower percentage of males.

CONCLUSIONS

UIHC, a rural trauma center, has a number of demographic characteristics that make it unique from urban trauma centers: an older population, lower percentage of male trauma patients, higher rates of blunt trauma, and lower rates of penetrating trauma. All of these factors influenced the lower rate of autopsies completed at rural trauma centers. Within a rural trauma center, those patients less likely to receive autopsy were older patients, those who died after 48 h in the hospital, and patients who suffered blunt injuries. The demographics of trauma patients most likely to receive an autopsy tend to correspond with those of an urban trauma population, thus providing a demographic explanation for the variation in autopsy rates among trauma systems.