Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Cardiology (P.L., A.S.P., M.H., P.A., L.-H.B., B.P., W.H., F.B.).
Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Germany. Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Campus Mitte, Germany (C.B.).
Circulation. 2018 Jun 19;137(25):2730-2740. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.032367.
Postmortem interrogations of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), recommended at autopsy in suspected cases of sudden cardiac death, are rarely performed, and data on systematic postmortem CIED analysis in the forensic pathology are missing. The aim of the study was to determine whether nonselective postmortem CIED interrogations and data analysis are useful to the forensic pathologist to determine the cause, mechanism, and time of death and to detect potential CIED-related safety issues.
From February 2012 to April 2017, all autopsy subjects in the department of forensic medicine at the University Hospital Charité who had a CIED underwent device removal and interrogation. Over the study period, 5368 autopsies were performed. One hundred fifty subjects had in total 151 CIEDs, including 109 pacemakers, 35 defibrillators, and 7 implantable loop recorders.
In 40 cases (26.7%) time of death and in 51 cases (34.0%) cause of death could not be determined by forensic autopsy. Of these, CIED interrogation facilitated the determination of time of death in 70.0% of the cases and clarified the cause of death in 60.8%. Device concerns were identified in 9 cases (6.0%), including 3 hardware, 4 programming, and 2 algorithm issues. One CIED was submitted to the manufacturer for a detailed technical analysis.
Our data demonstrate the necessity of systematic postmortem CIED interrogation in forensic medicine to determine the cause and timing of death more accurately. In addition, CIED analysis is an important tool to detect potential CIED-related safety issues.
在疑似心源性猝死的病例中,推荐在尸检时对心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)进行死后询问,但这种情况很少发生,法医病理学中也缺乏有关系统的死后 CIED 分析的数据。本研究旨在确定非选择性的死后 CIED 询问和数据分析是否对法医病理学家有用,以确定死亡的原因、机制和时间,并发现潜在的与 CIED 相关的安全问题。
从 2012 年 2 月至 2017 年 4 月,在 Charité 大学医院法医部门进行尸检的所有 CIED 受试者均进行了设备移除和询问。在研究期间,共进行了 5368 次尸检。150 名受试者共植入了 151 个 CIED,包括 109 个起搏器、35 个除颤器和 7 个植入式循环记录器。
在 40 例(26.7%)中无法通过法医尸检确定死亡时间,在 51 例(34.0%)中无法确定死亡原因。在这些病例中,CIED 询问有助于确定 70.0%病例的死亡时间,并澄清 60.8%病例的死亡原因。确定了 9 例(6.0%)设备相关问题,包括 3 例硬件问题、4 例编程问题和 2 例算法问题。有一个 CIED 被提交给制造商进行详细的技术分析。
我们的数据表明,在法医中进行系统的死后 CIED 询问对于更准确地确定死亡原因和时间是必要的。此外,CIED 分析是检测潜在的与 CIED 相关的安全问题的重要工具。