Are autopsy findings still relevant to the management of critically ill patients in the modern era?

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of clinical diagnoses compared to autopsy findings in critically ill patients in the current medical era. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective, blinded review of matched medical records and postmortem findings in patients who died between June 2006 and June 2011. SETTING: An ICU of a major university teaching hospital in Dublin, Ireland. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A modification of the Goldman criteria was used to classify diagnostic error. There were 629 ICU deaths during the study period. Two hundred and seven patients underwent autopsy and 204 records were available for review. The mean age was 59 ± 18.1 years, 62% were male, 70% were postoperative patients, and median length of ICU stay was 3 days. Admission diagnosis, admission source, and admission specialty were similar between autopsy and nonautopsy patients. Five patients (2.4%; CI, 0.8-5.6%) had a class I discrepancy and 11 patients (5.4%; CI, 2.4-9.7%) had a class II discrepancy. Minor missed diagnoses were present in 31 patients (15.2%; CI, 4.5-12.4%). There was complete concordance between clinical and postmortem findings (class V) in 161 patients (79%; CI, 72.7-84.3%). In more than half the cases of discrepancy, it was not possible for physicians to make the diagnosis antemortem in the time available, despite appropriate investigations. CONCLUSIONS: We detected a lower rate of clinicopathological discrepancy in critically ill patients than previously reported. Potential reasons for such findings include advances in diagnostic techniques and the use of a more robust definition to classify diagnostic discrepancies. Autopsy can still identify discrepancies in diagnosis even in patients who have undergone appropriate investigations. Prospective research is required to accurately define discrepancy rates in the critically ill population and to identify the patient subgroups in whom autopsy will continue to yield valuable information.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome: underrecognition by clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Previous reports suggest that acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is underdiagnosed in both adult and pediatric clinical practice. Underrecognition of this condition may be a barrier to instituting a low tidal volume ventilation strategy. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of clinical diagnoses of ARDS in daily practice using the American European Consensus Conference (AECC) criteria as a criterion standard and to investigate whether clinical recognition of ARDS altered ventilator management. METHODS: This retrospective study included intensive care unit (ICU) patients who died and underwent postmortem examination. Two independent reviewers assigned each patient to those with ALI/ARDS or no ALI. For those who met AECC criteria for ARDS, all patient records were reviewed for the presence of a documented diagnosis of the condition. The accuracy of the clinicians in diagnosing ALI/ARDS was determined, and ventilator settings between the clinically "diagnosed" and "non-diagnosed" groups were compared. The diagnostic accuracy in predetermined subgroups (those with diffuse alveolar damage, with ≥3 affected chest x-ray quadrants, with diagnosis≥3 days, with pulmonary vs extrapulmonary cause) was also examined. RESULTS: Of 98 consecutive ICU patients who died and underwent autopsy, 51 met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen of 51 patients (31.3%) who had ALI/ARDS according to the AECC criteria had this recorded in their clinical notes. Those with histologic evidence of ALI/ARDS (diffuse alveolar damage) and with a more severe chest x-ray pattern or who satisfied the criteria for a number of consecutive days were no more likely to have a clinical diagnosis of ALI/ARDS recorded. However, those with a pulmonary cause of ALI/ARDS were more likely to have a diagnosis recorded. Tidal volumes, positive end-expiratory pressure, and mean airway pressure were higher in those with a clinical diagnosis of ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Acute respiratory distress syndrome is underrecognized by clinicians in ICU, and recognition does not result in lower tidal volume ventilation. Significant barriers remain to the recognition of ALI/ARDS and application of an evidence-based ventilator strategy.

Discrepancies between clinical and autopsy diagnosis in liver transplant recipients - a case series.

The utility of the autopsy in patients who have undergone prior orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) has not previously been defined. We sought to investigate the role of the autopsy in liver transplantation by comparing the clinically derived cause of death with the autopsy cause of death in a cohort of liver transplant recipients at our institution. This study was undertaken in the setting of declining autopsy rates worldwide. Between 2006 and 2011 twenty-nine patients died who had previously undergone OLT, of on whom 19 postmortem examinations were performed. We retrospectively reviewed all post mortem findings, and separately we examined the corresponding medical records to determine the clinical impression of the cause of death. Discrepancies between the post mortem and clinical findings were categorised according to a modification of Goldman's criteria. Our case series demonstrated a discrepancy between the clinical and post mortem examination (PME) findings in 54% of patients. Two patients had major diagnoses (Goldman Class 1) not detected clinically and in seven patients the PME revealed additional undetected minor diagnoses. This case series demonstrates that, even in the modern era of advanced diagnostic imaging techniques, the post mortem examination continues to be a valuable tool in confirming diagnostic accuracy and improving standards in the care of liver transplant recipients.