Abstract
Objective
Post mortem examination rates have decreased worldwide and their usefulness has been challenged. The aim of this study was to compare ante- versus post mortem findings in a multidisciplinary ICU.
Design
Retrospective study.
Setting
Thirty-one-bed, medico-surgical ICU.
Patients
All patients who died on the ICU and underwent an autopsy examination in 1999.
Measurements
Records from autopsies were compared with clinical records. A modified Goldman’s criteria was used to categorize the post mortem diagnoses. Unexpected findings were evaluated according to the duration of hospitalization prior to death (fewer than or more than 10 days).
Results
Among 2,984 ICU admissions, there were 489 deaths; 222 autopsies were conducted (45.4% autopsy rate). Post mortem examination revealed unexpected findings in 50 patients (22.5%), including malignancy (22 [9.9%]), fungal infections (9 [4%]), pulmonary embolism (7 [3.2%]), nosocomial infections (3 [1.3%]), Hashimoto’s disease (3 [1.3%]), mesenteric infarction (2 [0.9%]), Barrett’s esophagus (2 [0.9%]), endocarditis (1 [0.5%]) and myocardial infarction (1 [0.5%]). These unexpected findings were considered as major (Class I/II) in 19 (8.5%), and minor (Class III) in 31 (14%) patients. In patients with a short ICU length of stay (<10 days), there were more major unexpected findings than minor, while after a prolonged stay (>10 days), minor unexpected findings were more common.
Conclusions
After a short ICU stay (<10 days), autopsy revealed discrepancies primarily related to the cause of death associated with diseases whose diagnosis can be difficult. Following more prolonged ICU stays (>10 days), autopsy was more likely to reveal coexisting diseases unrelated to death.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
As early as 1912, post mortem examination (PME) was being promoted as a useful medical procedure for correct diagnosis in difficult deaths and for the audit of clinical practice contributing to quality assessment [1]. In recent years, the PME rate has fallen worldwide: In the United States, PME rates decreased from 41% in the 1960s to 22% in the 1970s [2]; in Ireland, rates fell from 30.4% in 1990 to 18.4% in 1999 [3] and in Sweden rates fell from 80 to 39% in just one decade (1977/78 to 1987/88) [4]. Baker et al. [5] reported a mean autopsy rate of 12.7% in 418 US and Canadian institutions in 1989, with nearly two thirds of centers having an autopsy rate between 0 and 10%. A number of reasons can explain this decline, including improved modern diagnostic techniques, the fear of diagnostic errors being identified by autopsy findings, difficulty in obtaining consent from the family, increased work load for the pathologist and doubts regarding the cost/value ratio of the procedure [3, 6].
Published discrepancy rates between ante and post mortem diagnoses vary between 10 and 50% depending on the population studied, the criteria for PME, the completeness of the PME and the techniques used to evaluate the differences [4, 6–13]. Principal pathological entities uncovered by PME have included mainly undiagnosed nosocomial (particularly fungal) infections [10–12], pulmonary embolus [6, 8, 10, 14], myocardial infarction [13] and malignancy [14].
In our multidisciplinary Department of Intensive Care, PMEs are facilitated by the Belgian law of presumed consent, whereby post mortem examination is allowed provided that no formal opposition has been registered before death. Nevertheless, post mortem examinations are not performed routinely if the cause of death is considered obvious. The objective of the present study was to compare pre and post mortem diagnostic findings and investigate the relationship between unexpected findings and the length of ICU stay.
Materials and methods
We reviewed all autopsy findings from patients who died in the 31-bed, medico-surgical Department of Intensive Care of the Erasme University Hospital and who had an autopsy performed in 1999 (Jan 1–Dec 31). All PME were performed on the entire body, with the brain being examined when considered necessary by the pathologist, for example, in trauma patients, comatose patients, patients who had had severe infections with neurological manifestations where the responsible microorganism was not detected, cases of intoxication and when specifically requested by the physician responsible.
The medical records (including demographic data, admission diagnosis, length of stay, clinical, laboratory, radiological and other diagnostic findings) were reviewed by the first investigator (GD) to establish the principal diagnoses and the presumed cause of death for each patient. The autopsy reports were reviewed by the second investigator (MP) and were noted independently. Special histopathological and microbiological techniques for the final post mortem diagnostic protocol were also noted. Unexpected findings, so-called ‘discrepancies’, were classified using a modification of Goldman’s criteria (Table 1) [15]. Patients were classified into two groups according to the duration of stay in the ICU: fewer than 10 days and more than 10 days. The results were also analyzed according to patient age.
Statistical analysis included Χ2-test or Fisher’s exact test to compare categorical variables and t-test to compare mean values. A p less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
Results
From 2,984 ICU admissions in 1999, there were 489 deaths (mortality rate 16.3%). A total of 222 PMEs were performed (autopsy rate 45.4%). The brain was examined in 34 cases (15.3%). The clinical data of the patients are presented in Table 2. The mean ICU stay was 17±13 days (range 1–86 days). PME revealed unexpected findings in 50 (22.5%) patients, which were Class I in 12 (5.4%) patients, Class II in 7 (3.1%) and Class III in 31 (14%) patients.
The discrepancies detected by PME are presented in Table 3. All the detected discrepancies were confirmed by histopathological and microbiological techniques during the PME. Major (Class I/II) findings included fungal infections, other nosocomial infections, endocarditis, pulmonary embolism, mesenteric infarction and myocardial infarction. Six of seven patients with fungal infections had not been immunocompromised and all these patients had been treated empirically with the appropriate antifungal agents despite negative fungal cultures. In the patient with endocarditis, the diagnosis had been suspected, but two transesophageal echocardiographic techniques had failed to confirm the diagnosis and blood cultures had remained negative. Minor findings included non-metastatic malignancies, Hashimoto’s disease, pulmonary embolism, Barrett’s esophagus and Candida esophagitis.
When divided according to length of stay, there were more major findings in patients staying fewer than 10 days than in those staying more than 10 days (10.1% vs 6%). The reverse was seen with minor findings, which were more prevalent in the longer stay patients (26.2% vs 6.5%). All together, there were fewer discrepancies in patients staying fewer than 10 days than in those staying more than 10 days (16.7% vs 32.1%, p<0.001) (Table 4). The mean lengths of stay preceding major and minor unexpected findings were 8.3±6.9 and 16.8±8.4 days, respectively (p<.001).
Of the 222 autopsies, 204 (91.9%) were performed in patients older than 50 years. Overall, discrepancies were detected more often in older (21.2%) than in younger patients (1.3%), but this was not statistically significant (p>0.05). However, minor discrepancies were significantly more common in older than in younger patients (31 [14%] vs 0, p<0.05). In older patients, the commonest discrepancies detected were primary malignancies, while in younger patients unexpected findings included disseminated aspergillosis, nosocomial infection, viral pneumonia in one double-lung transplant patient and pulmonary embolism in a trauma patient.
Discussion
The present study reviewed all PMEs performed during a 1-year period in a large, mixed ICU. The total discrepancy rate in our study was 22.5%, and 8.5% of the unexpected findings were related to the cause of death, with 5.4% being Class I errors. This Class I discrepancy rate is lower than that reported in many other studies (T.S1 in the electronic supplementary material). Blosser et al. [6] reported a Class I discrepancy rate of 27% in 41 autopsies from 132 deaths and Roosen et al. [12] a rate of 16% in medical ICU patients. Mort and Yeston [11] found a Class I discrepancy rate of 23% in 149 surgical ICU patients (including transplant patients), with 85% being undiagnosed infections (mainly fungal and viral pneumonia). More recently, in a prospective study, Combes et al. [16] reported a Class I discrepancy rate of 10.2% in 167 ICU autopsies. The most frequently missed diagnoses were infarction, thrombosis and pulmonary emboli. However, in a recent study in a medical ICU population, Twigg and colleagues [13] reported similar rates to ours with an overall discrepancy rate of 23.7%, 4.1% being major discrepancies. In this study, hemorrhage was the commonest major discrepancy detected. Nadrous et al. [17] also noted, in their study of 455 autopsies, a major discrepancy rate of 4%, with a 17% rate of minor discrepancies; cardiac tamponade was the most common major error. These differences in discrepancy rates among studies may be explained not only by different ICU populations, but also by different criteria for autopsy. Studies from hospitals in which autopsies are largely performed only in complicated cases may be expected to show higher discrepancy rates [18].
Interestingly, several groups have studied changes over time in the rates of diagnostic discrepancies detected by autopsy. Two studies reported no changes in discrepancy rates for the decades 1960s, 1970s and 1980s with 10% of studies in all three decades reporting a major discrepancy [15, 19]. However, more recently, Sonderedder-Iseli et al. noted that the frequency of major discrepancies in a university hospital in Switzerland had decreased significantly, from 30% in 1972 to 18% in 1982 and 14% in 1992, p=0.007 [20]. The authors suggested that this decrease was due to improved diagnostic procedures. Using a systematic literature search, Shojania and colleagues [21] identified 53 autopsy series between 1966 and 2000 and reported an average major error rate over the 40 years of 23.5% (ranging from 1.1 to 49.8%). Major errors significantly decreased with time with a relative reduction of 19.4% per decade (95% CI, 1.8–33.8%). Nevertheless, extrapolating their results to a contemporary US hospital, the authors suggest that autopsies would still reveal a major error rate of 8–24%.
Several authors have stressed the value of the PME and the need to encourage its continued use [18, 22, 23], although the PME rate has decreased worldwide (T.S1 in the electronic supplementary material) [15] with recently quoted autopsy rates for ICU populations generally in the region of 20–30% [6, 11, 24], although another Belgian hospital recently reported PME rates as high as 93% [12] and, in Finland, Silfvast et al. reported a rate of 89% over the years 1996–2000 [25]. A study in the UK from 1998–2001 reported an autopsy rate of just 7.7%, with 50% of these being ordered by the coroner [18]. Some have suggested that the fall in autopsy rates may have been in part related to the fact that in 1970 the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations dropped the accreditation requirement that hospitals perform a set percentage of autopsies [26]. Anderson et al. [27] reported that autopsy results should be an integral part of the quality assurance process, and Mort and Yeston [11] go so far as to say that the PME is “the ultimate quality yardstick”. However, despite the percentage of “missed diagnoses”, there is no agreement regarding the use of autopsy as a quality assurance tool and there are no data on the cost-effectiveness of systematic autopsy.
Major (Class I/II) discrepancies in our study were associated with diseases characterized by being difficult to diagnose, while minor discrepancies (Class III) included mainly unknown diseases present before ICU admission. Two decades ago, Goldman et al. reported similar unexpected findings in a non-ICU population, including pulmonary embolus, acute myocardial infarction, tumors and infections [15]. The so-called ‘missed diagnosis’ does not, therefore, necessarily imply medical negligence but rather an increased incidence of complicated diseases in the critically ill patient despite advanced medical technology, improved diagnostic tests and techniques, and increased clinical awareness. The development of spiral computed tomography has facilitated the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism [28], yet in seven of our patients autopsy showed a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism that had not been made clinically. The diagnosis of endocarditis may also be particularly difficult in ICU patients [29]. In one patient, autopsy revealed endocarditis even though the patient had had two negative transesophageal echocardiograph studies and repeated negative blood cultures.
Several previous autopsy studies have reported that infections, particularly fungal infections, are the most common discrepant finding [10–12, 25]. The diagnostic methods available for fungal infections do not reliably differentiate colonization from systemic infection, and blood cultures (indicating invasive infection) are negative in 50% of patients with invasive candidosis [30]; our results showed that PME identified nine unexpected fungal infections. Silfvast et al. [25] recently reported that five of the eight major (Class I) discrepancies in their analysis of 346 autopsy reports on ICU patients were infections which occurred in patients already treated for another infection, highlighting the difficulties in diagnosing infectious complications.
We identified an important relationship between the length of ICU stay and the type of discrepancy detected. In patients with an ICU stay of fewer than 10 days, the detected discrepancies were mainly major (Class I/II) and included fungal infections, pulmonary embolism, mesenteric infarction and endocarditis, while in patients who died following a prolonged (>10 days) ICU stay, unexpected findings usually related to coexisting diseases (mainly non-metastatic malignancies) that did not directly affect the cause of death. Overall, patients with a longer length of stay were more likely to have a discrepancy between the pre and post mortem diagnoses. Mort and Yeston [11] reported that patients who stayed longer than 48 h were more likely to have a major discrepancy than those who died within 48 h of ICU admission. Other studies have reported no relation between the length of stay and post mortem findings [16–18, 31, 32].
Several studies have reported the relationship between patient age and the number of missed diagnoses, with increased discrepancies among older patients [10, 31, 33]. Our results did not show a statistically significant relationship between the number of discrepancies and patient age, although, perhaps not surprisingly, there was a greater number of minor unexpected findings in older patients (>50 years old).
We acknowledge the limitations of this study. Indeed, all autopsy studies have some limitations in that there is no standard procedure for selection of patients for autopsy or for autopsy technique. Post mortem exams were conducted on fewer than half of the patients who died on the ICU during the 1-year study period, representing another potential limitation, although this rate is considerably higher than in many other recent studies. A further limitation is that the study was conducted in a single ICU and our findings may, therefore, not be applicable to other units.
In conclusion, following a short ICU stay, PME can detect findings whose diagnosis is difficult even though they may be suspected by the intensivist. Following a longer ICU stay, PME is more likely to detect coexisting disease processes unrelated to death. The PME should not be seen as a means of providing evidence of clinical malpractice, but rather as a positive educational tool to improve patient care.
References
Cabot RC (1912) Diagnostic pitfalls identified during a study of three thousand autopsies. JAMA 59:2295–2298
Roberts WC (1978) The autopsy: its decline and a suggestion for its revival. N Engl J Med 299:332–338
Loughrey MB, McCluggage WG, Toner PG (2000) The declining autopsy rate and clinicians’ attitudes. Ulster Med J 69:83–89
Veress B, Alafuzoff I (1993) Clinical diagnostic accuracy audited by autopsy in a university hospital in two eras. Qual Assur Health Care 5:281–286
Baker PB, Zarbo RJ, Howanitz PJ (1996) Quality assurance of autopsy face sheet reporting, final autopsy report turnaround time and autopsy rates: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 10,003 autopsies from 418 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 120:1003–1008
Blosser SA, Zimmerman HE, Stauffer JL (1998) Do autopsies of critically ill patients reveal important findings that were clinically undetected? Crit Care Med 26:1332–1336
Landefeld CS, Chren MM, Myers A, Geller R, Robbins S, Goldman L (1988) Diagnostic yield of the autopsy in a university hospital and a community hospital. N Engl J Med 318:1249–1254
Rao MG, Rangwala AF (1990) Diagnostic yield from 231 autopsies in a community hospital. Am J Clin Pathol 93:486–490
Boers M, Nieuwenhuyzen Kruseman AC, Eulderink F, Hermans J, Thompson J (1988) Value of autopsy in internal medicine: a 1-year prospective study of hospital deaths. Eur J Clin Invest 18:314–320
Sarode VR, Datta BN, Banerjee AK, Banerjee CK, Joshi K, Bhusnurmath B, Radotra BD (1993) Autopsy findings and clinical diagnoses: a review of 1,000 cases. Hum Pathol 24:194–198
Mort TC, Yeston NS (1999) The relationship of pre mortem diagnoses and post mortem findings in a surgical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 27:299–303
Roosen J, Frans E, Wilmer A, Knockaert DC, Bobbaers H (2000) Comparison of premortem clinical diagnoses in critically iII patients and subsequent autopsy findings. Mayo Clin Proc 75:562–567
Twigg SJ, McCrirrick A, Sanderson PM (2001) A comparison of post mortem findings with post hoc estimated clinical diagnoses of patients who die in a United Kingdom intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 27:706–710
Stevanovic G, Tucakovic G, Dotlic R, Kanjuh V (1986) Correlation of clinical diagnoses with autopsy findings: a retrospective study of 2,145 consecutive autopsies. Hum Pathol 17:1225–1230
Goldman L, Sayson R, Robbins S, Cohn LH, Bettmann M, Weisberg M (1983) The value of the autopsy in three medical eras. N Engl J Med 308:1000–1005
Combes A, Mokhtari M, Couvelard A, Trouillet JL, Baudot J, Henin D, Gibert C, Chastre J (2004) Clinical and autopsy diagnoses in the intensive care unit: a prospective study. Arch Intern Med 164:389–392
Nadrous HF, Afessa B, Pfeifer EA, Peters SG (2003) The role of autopsy in the intensive care unit. Mayo Clin Proc 78:947–950
Perkins GD, McAuley DF, Davies S, Gao F (2003) Discrepancies between clinical and postmortem diagnoses in critically ill patients: an observational study. Crit Care 7:R129–R132
Kirch W, Schafii C (1996) Misdiagnosis at a university hospital in 4 medical eras. Medicine (Baltimore) 75:29–40
Sonderegger-Iseli K, Burger S, Muntwyler J, Salomon F (2000) Diagnostic errors in three medical eras: a necropsy study. Lancet 355:2027–2031
Shojania KG, Burton EC, McDonald KM, Goldman L (2003) Changes in rates of autopsy-detected diagnostic errors over time: a systematic review. JAMA 289:2849–2856
Pastores SM, Halpern NA (1999) Autopsies in the ICU: we still need them! Crit Care Med 27:235–236
Nemetz PN, Beard CM, Ballard DJ, Ludwig J, Tangalos EG, Kokmen E, Weigel KM, Belau PG, Bourne WM, Kurland LT (1989) Resurrecting the autopsy: benefits and recommendations. Mayo Clin Proc 64:1065–1076
Tai DY, El Bilbeisi H, Tewari S, Mascha EJ, Wiedemann HP, Arroliga AC (2001) A study of consecutive autopsies in a medical ICU: a comparison of clinical cause of death and autopsy diagnosis. Chest 119:530–536
Silfvast T, Takkunen O, Kolho E, Andersson LC, Rosenberg P (2003) Characteristics of discrepancies between clinical and autopsy diagnoses in the intensive care unit: a 5-year review. Intensive Care Med 29:321–324
Marwick C (1995) Pathologists request autopsy revival. JAMA 273:1889–1891
Anderson RE (1984) The autopsy as an instrument of quality assessment. Classification of premortem and postmortem diagnostic discrepancies. Arch Pathol Lab Med 108:490–493
Ferretti GR, Bosson JL, Buffaz PD, Ayanian D, Pison C, Blanc F, Carpentier F, Carpentier P, Coulomb M (1997) Acute pulmonary embolism: role of helical CT in 164 patients with intermediate probability at ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy and normal results at duplex US of the legs. Radiology 205:453–458
Gouello JP, Asfar P, Brenet O, Kouatchet A, Berthelot G, Alquier P (2000) Nosocomial endocarditis in the intensive care unit: an analysis of 22 cases. Crit Care Med 28:377–382
Geha DJ, Roberts GD (1994) Laboratory detection of fungemia. Clin Lab Med 14:83–97
Battle RM, Pathak D, Humble CG, Key CR, Vanatta PR, Hill RB, Anderson RE (1987) Factors influencing discrepancies between premortem and postmortem diagnoses. JAMA 258:339–344
Fernandez-Segoviano P, Lazaro A, Esteban A, Rubio JM, Iruretagoyena JR (1988) Autopsy as quality assurance in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 16:683–685
Veress B, Alafuzoff I (1994) A retrospective analysis of clinical diagnoses and autopsy findings in 3,042 cases during two different time periods. Hum Pathol 25:140–145
Gut AL, Ferreira AL, Montenegro MR (1999) Autopsy: quality assurance in the ICU. Intensive Care Med 25:360–363
Podbregar M, Voga G, Krivec B, Skale R, Pareznik R, Gabrscek L (2001) Should we confirm our clinical diagnostic certainty by autopsies? Intensive Care Med 27:1750–1755
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic Supplementary Material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dimopoulos, G., Piagnerelli, M., Berré, J. et al. Post mortem examination in the intensive care unit: still useful?. Intensive Care Med 30, 2080–2085 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-004-2448-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-004-2448-5