European Radiology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 152–160 | Cite as

The effectiveness of postmortem multidetector computed tomography in the detection of fatal findings related to cause of non-traumatic death in the emergency department

  • Naoya Takahashi
  • Takeshi Higuchi
  • Motoi Shiotani
  • Yasuo Hirose
  • Hiroyuki Shibuya
  • Haruo Yamanouchi
  • Hideki Hashidate
  • Kazuhisa Funayama
Emergency Radiology

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the diagnostic performance of postmortem multidetector computed tomography (PMMDCT) for the detection of fatal findings related to causes of non-traumatic death in the emergency department (ED).

Methods

494 consecutive cases of clinically diagnosed non-traumatic death in ED involving PMMDCT were enrolled. The fatal findings were detected on PMMDCT and classified as definite or possible findings. These findings were confirmed by autopsy in 20 cases.

Results

The fatal findings were detected in 188 subjects (38.1%) including 122 with definite (24.7%) and 66 with possible finding (13.4%). Definite findings included 21 cases of intracranial vascular lesions, 84 with intra-thoracic haemorrhage, 13 with retroperitoneal haemorrhage and one with oesophagogastric haemorrhage. In three patients who had initially been diagnosed with non-traumatic death, PMMDCT revealed fatal traumatic findings. Two definite findings (two haemopericardiums) and seven possible findings (two intestinal obstructions, one each of multiple liver tumours central pulmonary artery dilatation, pulmonary congestion, peritoneal haematoma, and brain oedema) were confirmed by autopsy. The causes of death were not determined in cases with possible findings without autopsy.

Conclusions

PMMDCT is a feasible tool for detecting morphological fatal findings in non-traumatic death in ED. It is important to know the ability and limitation of PMMDCT.

Key Points

Postmortem multi-detector CT (MDCT) can reveal the cause of non-traumatic death.

Postmortem MDCT is quick and can be widely available.

Postmortem MDCT is acceptable to those relatives who object to invasive autopsy.

MDCT cannot establish the cause of death in all patients.

Keywords

Postmortem CT Emergency department Postmortem imaging Forensic imaging Sudden death 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mr. Stephan Dulka for checking the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Mushtaq F, Ritchie D (2005) Do we know what people die of in the emergency department? Emerg Med J 22(10):718–721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Quigley M, Burton J (2003) Evidence for cause of death in patients dying in an accident and emergency department. Emerg Med J 20(4):349–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shiotani S, Shiigai M, Ueno Y et al (2008) Postmortem computed tomography findings as evidence of traffic accident-related fatal injury. Radiat Med 26(5):253–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoey BA, Cipolla J, Grossman MD et al (2007) Postmortem computed tomography, “CATopsy”, predicts cause of death in trauma patients. J Trauma 63(5):979–985, discussion 985–976PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sochor MR, Trowbridge MJ, Boscak A, Maino JC, Maio RF (2008) Postmortem computed tomography as an adjunct to autopsy for analyzing fatal motor vehicle crash injuries: results of a pilot study. J Trauma 65(3):659–665PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bolliger SA, Thali MJ, Ross S, Buck U, Naether S, Vock P (2008) Virtual autopsy using imaging: bridging radiologic and forensic sciences. A review of the Virtopsy and similar projects. Eur Radiol 18(2):273–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levy AD, Abbott RM, Mallak CT et al (2006) Virtual autopsy: preliminary experience in high-velocity gunshot wound victims. Radiology 240(2):522–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scholing M, Saltzherr TP, Fung Kon Jin PH et al (2009) The value of postmortem computed tomography as an alternative for autopsy in trauma victims: a systematic review. Eur Radiol 19(10):2333–2341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christe A, Ross S, Oesterhelweg L et al (2009) Abdominal trauma–sensitivity and specificity of postmortem noncontrast imaging findings compared with autopsy findings. J Trauma 66(5):1302–1307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mitka M (2007) CT, MRI scans offer new tools for autopsy. JAMA 298(4):392–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anon J, Remonda L, Spreng A et al (2008) Traumatic extra-axial hemorrhage: correlation of postmortem MDCT, MRI, and forensic-pathological findings. J Magn Reson Imaging 28(4):823–836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leth PM (2007) The use of CT scanning in forensic autopsy. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 3(1):65–69Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harcke HT, Levy AD, Getz JM, Robinson SR (2008) MDCT analysis of projectile injury in forensic investigation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(2):W106–W111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Watts G (2010) Imaging the dead. BMJ 341:c6600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iino M, O’Donnell C (2010) Postmortem computed tomography findings of upper airway obstruction by food. J Forensic Sci 55(5):1251–1258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Christe A, Aghayev E, Jackowski C, Thali MJ, Vock P (2008) Drowning–post-mortem imaging findings by computed tomography. Eur Radiol 18(2):283–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yen K, Lovblad KO, Scheurer E et al (2007) Post-mortem forensic neuroimaging: correlation of MSCT and MRI findings with autopsy results. Forensic Sci Int 173(1):21–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ross S, Spendlove D, Bolliger S et al (2008) Postmortem whole-body CT angiography: evaluation of two contrast media solutions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(5):1380–1389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jackowski C, Warntjes MJ, Berge J, Bar W, Persson A (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging goes postmortem: noninvasive detection and assessment of myocardial infarction by postmortem MRI. Eur Radiol 21(1):70–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bolliger SA, Filograna L, Spendlove D, Thali MJ, Dirnhofer S, Ross S (2010) Postmortem imaging-guided biopsy as an adjuvant to minimally invasive autopsy with CT and postmortem angiography: a feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(5):1051–1056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shiotani S, Watanabe K, Kohno M, Ohashi N, Yamazaki K, Nakayama H (2004) Postmortem computed tomographic (PMCT) findings of pericardial effusion due to acute aortic dissection. Radiat Med 22(6):405–407PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weustink AC, Hunink MG, van Dijke CF, Renken NS, Krestin GP, Oosterhuis JW (2009) Minimally invasive autopsy: an alternative to conventional autopsy? Radiology 250(3):897–904PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Takahashi N, Higuchi T, Shiotani M, Maeda H, Sasaki O (2009) Multiple lung tumors as the cause of death in a patient with subarachnoid hemorrhage: postmortem computed tomography study. Jpn J Radiol 27(8):316–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shiotani S, Kobayashi T, Hayakawa H, Kikuchi K, Kohno M (2011) Postmortem pulmonary edema: a comparison between immediate and delayed postmortem computed tomography. Leg Med. doi: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2010.12.008
  25. 25.
    Yamazaki K, Shiotani S, Ohashi N et al (2006) Comparison between computed tomography (CT) and autopsy findings in cases of abdominal injury and disease. Forensic Sci Int 162(1–3):163–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oyake Y, Aoki T, Shiotani S et al (2006) Postmortem computed tomography for detecting causes of sudden death in infants and children: retrospective review of cases. Radiat Med 24(7):493–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roberts IS, Benbow EW, Bisset R et al (2003) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in determining cause of sudden death in adults: comparison with conventional autopsy. Histopathology 42(5):424–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Takahashi N, Satou C, Higuchi T, Shiotani M, Maeda H, Hirose Y (2010) Quantitative analysis of intracranial hypostasis: comparison of early postmortem and antemortem CT findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(6):W388–W393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ezawa H, Shiotani S, Uchigasaki S (2007) Autopsy imaging in Japan. Rechtsmedizin 17:19–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shojania KG, Burton EC, McDonald KM, Goldman L (2003) Changes in rates of autopsy-detected diagnostic errors over time: a systematic review. JAMA 289(21):2849–2856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shojania KG, Burton EC (2008) The vanishing nonforensic autopsy. N Engl J Med 358(9):873–875PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Loughrey MB, McCluggage WG, Toner PG (2000) The declining autopsy rate and clinicians’ attitudes. Ulster Med J 69(2):83–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rieger M, Czermak B, El Attal R, Sumann G, Jaschke W, Freund M (2009) Initial clinical experience with a 64-MDCT whole-body scanner in an emergency department: better time management and diagnostic quality? J Trauma 66(3):648–657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naoya Takahashi
    • 1
  • Takeshi Higuchi
    • 1
  • Motoi Shiotani
    • 1
  • Yasuo Hirose
    • 2
  • Hiroyuki Shibuya
    • 3
  • Haruo Yamanouchi
    • 4
  • Hideki Hashidate
    • 3
  • Kazuhisa Funayama
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyNiigata City General HospitalNiigataJapan
  2. 2.Department of Emergency and Critical CareNiigata City General HospitalNiigataJapan
  3. 3.Department of PathologyNiigata City General HospitalNiigataJapan
  4. 4.Department of Community Preventive Medicine, Division of Legal MedicineNiigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental SciencesNiigataJapan

Personalised recommendations