Castillo Paola, Martínez Miguel J, Ussene Esperança, Jordao Dercio, Lovane Lucilia, Ismail Mamudo R, Carrilho Carla, Lorenzoni Cesaltina, Fernandes Fabiola, Bene Rosa, Palhares Antonio, Ferreira Luiz, Lacerda Marcus, Mandomando Inacio, Vila Jordi, Hurtado Juan Carlos, Munguambe Khátia, Maixenchs Maria, Sanz Ariadna, Quintó Llorenç, Macete Eusebio, Alonso Pedro, Bassat Quique, Menéndez Clara, Ordi Jaume
ISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Department of Microbiology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
PLoS Med. 2016 Nov 22;13(11):e1002171. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002171. eCollection 2016 Nov.
There 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.
In 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.
A 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.
由于目前的方法(死因推断、临床记录和完整尸检)要么不准确、不可行,要么接受度低,因此迫切需要找到能够提供低收入地区可靠死因信息的工具。我们旨在比较标准化微创尸检(MIA)方法与金标准——完整诊断尸检(CDA)在莫桑比克马普托中心医院死亡的一系列成年人中的表现。
在这项观察性研究中,对112名死者进行了联合MIA和CDA。MIA分析是在不知道临床数据或CDA结果的情况下进行的盲法分析。我们将MIA诊断结果与CDA死因诊断结果进行了比较。CDA诊断包括传染病(80例;71.4%)、恶性肿瘤(16例;14.3%)以及其他疾病,包括非传染性心血管疾病、胃肠道疾病、肾脏疾病和肺部疾病(16例;14.3%)。112例中有100例(89.2%)获得了MIA诊断。MIA诊断与CDA诊断的总体一致性为75.9%(85/112)。传染病和恶性肿瘤的一致性更高(分别为63/80 [78.8%]和13/16 [81.3%]),高于其他疾病(9/16;56.2%)。在62/74(83.8%)已知死因的传染病死亡病例中,MIA确定了导致死亡的具体微生物。该分析的主要局限性在于MIA和CDA都包含一定程度的专家主观解读。
一种简单的MIA程序可以确定莫桑比克许多成人死亡的原因。该工具在提高对传染病是常见死亡原因地区的死因理解和监测方面可能发挥重要作用。