Suppr超能文献

微创尸检:传统尸检的替代方法?

Minimally invasive autopsy: an alternative to conventional autopsy?

作者信息

Weustink Annick C, Hunink M G Myriam, van Dijke Cornelis F, Renken Nomdo S, Krestin Gabriel P, Oosterhuis J Wolter

机构信息

Department of Radiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Dr Molewaterplein 40, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Radiology. 2009 Mar;250(3):897-904. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2503080421.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To determine the diagnostic performance of minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) for detection of causes of death and to investigate the feasibility of MIA as an alternative to conventional autopsy (CA) in the clinical setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The institutional review board approved the MIA procedure and study, and informed consent was obtained for all deceased patients from relatives. Thirty deceased patients (19 men, 11 women; age range, 46-79 years), for whom family permission for CA on medical grounds had already been obtained, underwent additional evaluation with MIA prior to CA. MIA consisted of whole-body 16-section computed tomography (CT) and 1.5-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, followed by ultrasonography-guided 12-gauge needle biopsy of heart, both lungs, liver, both kidneys, and spleen. Percentage agreement between MIA and CA on cause of death was evaluated. Sensitivity and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of MIA for detection of overall (major plus minor) findings, with CA as the reference standard, were calculated. Specificity was calculated for overall findings. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the effect of the clustered nature of the data.

RESULTS

In 23 patients (77%), MIA and CA were in agreement on the cause of death. Sensitivity of MIA for detection of overall findings and detection of major findings was 93% (95% CI: 90%, 96%) and 94% (95% CI: 87%, 97%), respectively. Specificity was 99% (95% CI: 98%, 99%) for detection of overall findings. MIA failed to demonstrate acute myocardial infarction as the cause of death in four patients. Sensitivity analysis indicated a negligible correlation between observations within each patient. CT was superior to MR for detection of pneumothorax and calcifications. MR was superior to CT for detection of brain abnormalities and pulmonary embolus. With biopsy only, detection of disease in 55 organs was possible, which included 27 major findings.

CONCLUSION

MIA is a feasible procedure with high diagnostic performance for detection of common causes of death such as pneumonia and sepsis; MIA failed to demonstrate cardiac diseases, such as acute myocardial infarction and endocarditis, as underlying cause of death.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/250/3/897//DC1.

摘要

目的

确定微创尸检(MIA)在死因检测方面的诊断性能,并探讨在临床环境中MIA作为传统尸检(CA)替代方法的可行性。

材料与方法

机构审查委员会批准了MIA程序和研究,并获得了所有已故患者亲属的知情同意。30例已故患者(19例男性,11例女性;年龄范围46 - 79岁),其家属已基于医学理由同意进行CA,在进行CA之前先接受了MIA的额外评估。MIA包括全身16层计算机断层扫描(CT)和1.5-T磁共振(MR)成像,随后进行超声引导下对心脏、双肺、肝脏、双肾和脾脏进行12号针穿刺活检。评估了MIA和CA在死因方面的百分比一致性。以CA作为参考标准,计算MIA检测总体(主要加次要)发现的敏感性及相应的95%置信区间(CI)。计算总体发现的特异性。进行敏感性分析以探讨数据聚类性质的影响。

结果

23例患者(77%)中,MIA和CA在死因上一致。MIA检测总体发现和主要发现的敏感性分别为93%(95% CI:90%,96%)和94%(95% CI:87%,97%)。总体发现检测的特异性为99%(95% CI:98%,99%)。MIA未能在4例患者中证实急性心肌梗死为死因。敏感性分析表明各患者内观察结果之间的相关性可忽略不计。CT在检测气胸和钙化方面优于MR。MR在检测脑异常和肺栓塞方面优于CT。仅通过活检,可在55个器官中检测到疾病,其中包括27项主要发现。

结论

MIA是一种可行的方法,在检测肺炎和败血症等常见死因方面具有较高的诊断性能;MIA未能证实心脏病,如急性心肌梗死和心内膜炎,为潜在死因。

补充材料

http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/250/3/897//DC1

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验