BackgroundThere is an urgent need to identify tools able to provide reliable information on the cause of death in low-income regions, since current methods (verbal autopsy, clinical records, and complete autopsies) are either inaccurate, not feasible, or poorly accepted. We aimed to compare the performance of a standardized minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) approach with that of the gold standard, the complete diagnostic autopsy (CDA), in a series of adults who died at Maputo Central Hospital in Mozambique.Methods and FindingsIn this observational study, coupled MIAs and CDAs were performed in 112 deceased patients. The MIA analyses were done blindly, without knowledge of the clinical data or the results of the CDA. We compared the MIA diagnosis with the CDA diagnosis of cause of death.CDA diagnoses comprised infectious diseases (80; 71.4%), malignant tumors (16; 14.3%), and other diseases, including non-infectious cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, kidney, and lung diseases (16; 14.3%). A MIA diagnosis was obtained in 100/112 (89.2%) cases. The overall concordance between the MIA diagnosis and CDA diagnosis was 75.9% (85/112). The concordance was higher for infectious diseases and malignant tumors (63/80 [78.8%] and 13/16 [81.3%], respectively) than for other diseases (9/16; 56.2%). The specific microorganisms causing death were identified in the MIA in 62/74 (83.8%) of the infectious disease deaths with a recognized cause.The main limitation of the analysis is that both the MIA and the CDA include some degree of expert subjective interpretation.ConclusionsA simple MIA procedure can identify the cause of death in many adult deaths in Mozambique. This tool could have a major role in improving the understanding and surveillance of causes of death in areas where infectious diseases are a common cause of mortality.
BackgroundOver 5 million stillbirths and neonatal deaths occur annually. Limited and imprecise information on the cause of these deaths hampers progress in achieving global health targets. Complete diagnostic autopsies (CDAs)—the gold standard for cause of death determination—are difficult to perform in most high-burden settings. Therefore, validation of simpler and more feasible methods is needed.Methods and findingsIn this observational study, the validity of a minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) method in determining the cause of death was assessed in 18 stillbirths and 41 neonatal deaths by comparing the results of the MIA with those of the CDA. Concordance between the categories of diseases obtained by the 2 methods was assessed by the Kappa statistic, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of the MIA diagnoses were calculated. A cause of death was identified in 16/18 (89%) and 15/18 (83%) stillborn babies in the CDA and the MIA, respectively. Fetal growth restriction accounted for 39%, infectious diseases for 22%, intrapartum hypoxia for 17%, and intrauterine hypoxia for 11% of stillborn babies. Overall, the MIA showed in this group a substantial concordance with the CDA (Kappa = 0.78, 95% CI [0.56–0.99]). A cause of death was identified in all (100%) and 35/41 (85%) neonatal deaths in the CDA and the MIA, respectively. In this group, the majority of deaths were due to infectious diseases (66%). The overall concordance of the MIA with the CDA in neonates was moderate (Kappa = 0.40, 95% CI [0.18–0.63]). A high percentage of accuracy was observed for the MIA in all the diagnostic categories in both stillbirths and neonates (>75%). The main limitation of this study is that some degree of subjective interpretation is inherent to cause-of-death attribution in both the MIA and the CDA; this is especially so in stillbirths and in relation to fetal growth restriction.ConclusionsThe MIA could be a useful tool for cause-of-death determination in stillbirths and neonatal deaths. These findings may help to accelerate progress towards meeting global health targets by obtaining more accurate information on the causes of death in these age groups, which is essential in guiding the design of new interventions and increasing the effectiveness of those already implemented.
Background and AimsComplete diagnostic autopsies (CDA) remain the gold standard in the determination of cause of death (CoD). However, performing CDAs in developing countries is challenging due to limited facilities and human resources, and poor acceptability. We aimed to develop and test a simplified minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) procedure involving organ-directed sampling with microbiology and pathology analyses implementable by trained technicians in low- income settings.MethodsA standardized scheme for the MIA has been developed and tested in a series of 30 autopsies performed at the Maputo Central Hospital, Mozambique. The procedure involves the collection of 20 mL of blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and puncture of liver, lungs, heart, spleen, kidneys, bone marrow and brain in all cases plus uterus in women of childbearing age, using biopsy needles.ResultsThe sampling success ranged from 67% for the kidney to 100% for blood, CSF, lung, liver and brain. The amount of tissue obtained in the procedure varied from less than 10 mm2 for the lung, spleen and kidney, to over 35 mm2 for the liver and brain. A CoD was identified in the histological and/or the microbiological analysis in 83% of the MIAs.ConclusionsA simplified MIA technique allows obtaining adequate material from body fluids and major organs leading to accurate diagnoses. This procedure could improve the determination of CoD in developing countries.
BackgroundIn recent decades, the world has witnessed unprecedented progress in child survival. However, our knowledge of what is killing nearly 6 million children annually in low- and middle-income countries remains poor, partly because of the inadequacy and reduced precision of the methods currently utilized in these settings to investigate causes of death (CoDs). The study objective was to validate the use of a minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) approach as an adequate and more acceptable substitute for the complete diagnostic autopsy (CDA) for pediatric CoD investigation in a poor setting.Methods and findingsIn this observational study, the validity of the MIA approach in determining the CoD was assessed in 54 post-neonatal pediatric deaths (age range: ≥1 mo to 15 y) in a referral hospital of Mozambique by comparing the results of the MIA with those of the CDA. Concordance in the category of disease obtained by the two methods was evaluated by the Kappa statistic, and the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the MIA diagnoses were calculated.A CoD was identified in all cases in the CDA and in 52/54 (96%) of the cases in the MIA, with infections and malignant tumors accounting for the majority of diagnoses. The MIA categorization of disease showed a substantial concordance with the CDA categorization (Kappa = 0.70, 95% CI 0.49–0.92), and sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy were high. The ICD-10 diagnoses were coincident in up to 75% (36/48) of the cases. The MIA allowed the identification of the specific pathogen deemed responsible for the death in two-thirds (21/32; 66%) of all deaths of infectious origin. Discrepancies between the MIA and the CDA in individual diagnoses could be minimized with the addition of some basic clinical information such as those ascertainable through a verbal autopsy or clinical record. The main limitation of the analysis is that both the MIA and the CDA include some degree of expert subjective interpretation.ConclusionsThe MIA showed substantial concordance with CDA for CoD identification in this series of pediatric deaths in Mozambique. This minimally invasive approach, simpler and more readily acceptable than the more invasive CDA, could provide robust data for CoD surveillance, especially in resource-limited settings, which could be helpful for guiding child survival strategies in the future.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.