Department of Pathology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
University Hospital of Lausanne, University Center of Legal Medicine, Lausanne-Geneva, Chemin de la Vulliette 4, 1000, Lausanne 25, Switzerland.
Int J Legal Med. 2017 Nov;131(6):1565-1572. doi: 10.1007/s00414-017-1560-3. Epub 2017 Feb 27.
Aortic rupture or dissection as immediate cause of sudden death is encountered in forensic and clinical autopsy practice. Despite a common denominator of 'sudden aortic death' (SAD), we expect that in both settings the diagnostic workup, being either primarily legal or primarily disease related, differs substantially, which may affect the eventual diagnoses.
We retrospectively reviewed case records of deceased persons who fitted a diagnosis of SAD in the continuous autopsy cohorts in a forensic (Suisse) and a clinical setting (The Netherlands). Clinical characteristics, data from post-mortem imaging, tissue blocks for histological analysis and results of ancillary studies were reviewed for its presence and outcome.
SAD was found in 7.7% in the forensic versus 2.2% in the clinical autopsies. In the forensic setting, autopsy was always combined with post-mortem imaging, showing variable outcome on detection of aortic disruption and/or pericardial bleeding. Histology of aorta was performed in 12/35 cases, mostly in the natural deaths. In the clinical setting, histology of the aorta was available in all cases, but post-mortem imaging in none. In both settings, underlying aortic disease was mostly cystic medial degeneration, atherosclerosis or a combination of both, with occasional rare unexpected diagnosis. Also in both, a genetic cause of aortic dissection was revealed in a minority (three cases).
Sudden aortic death (SAD) is more commonly encountered in a forensic than in a clinical setting. Major differences in the approach of SAD between these settings coincide with similarities in causes of death and underlying diseases. To ensure a correct diagnosis, we recommend that the investigation of SAD includes a study of the medical history, a full autopsy with histology of major organs including aorta, and storage of material for toxicological and genetic testing. Post-mortem radiological examination, useful for documentation and screening purposes, is feasible as non-invasive alternative when autopsy is not possible, but cannot substitute a full autopsy.
在法医和临床尸检实践中,主动脉破裂或夹层是导致猝死的直接原因。尽管“突发性主动脉死亡”(SAD)有一个共同的特征,但我们预计,在这两种情况下,诊断工作,无论是主要法律相关还是主要疾病相关,都有很大的不同,这可能会影响最终的诊断。
我们回顾性地审查了连续尸检队列中符合 SAD 诊断的死者的病例记录,这些队列分别来自法医(瑞士)和临床(荷兰)环境。对临床特征、死后影像学资料、组织块进行组织学分析以及辅助研究的结果进行了审查,以了解其存在和结果。
在法医尸检中,SAD 占 7.7%,而在临床尸检中占 2.2%。在法医环境中,尸检总是与死后影像学检查相结合,显示出检测主动脉破裂和/或心包出血的不同结果。35 例中有 12 例行主动脉组织学检查,主要是在自然死亡中进行。在临床环境中,所有病例均行主动脉组织学检查,但均未行死后影像学检查。在这两种情况下,主动脉疾病的主要原因是囊性中层变性、动脉粥样硬化或两者的组合,偶尔也会出现罕见的意外诊断。同样,在这两种情况下,少数(三例)也发现了主动脉夹层的遗传原因。
突发性主动脉死亡(SAD)在法医尸检中比在临床尸检中更为常见。这两种情况下 SAD 处理方法的主要差异与死亡原因和潜在疾病的相似性相一致。为了确保正确诊断,我们建议对 SAD 的调查包括研究病史、进行包括主动脉在内的主要器官组织学检查的全面尸检,以及储存用于毒理学和遗传学检测的材料。死后放射学检查,对记录和筛查目的有用,当无法进行尸检时,可以作为非侵入性的替代方法,但不能替代全面尸检。