Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of postmortem ultrasound vs postmortem 1.5-T MRI for non-invasive perinatal autopsy.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of postmortem magnetic resonance imaging (PM-MRI) and postmortem ultrasound (PM-US) for perinatal autopsy in the same patient cohort, and to determine whether PM-US can provide the same anatomical information as PM-MRI.

Methods

In this prospective, 5-year (July 2014-July 2019) single-center study, we performed 1.5-T PM-MRI and PM-US in an unselected cohort of perinatal deaths. The diagnostic accuracies of both modalities were calculated, using autopsy as the reference standard. As a secondary objective, the concordance rates between the two imaging modalities for the overall main diagnosis and for five anatomical regions (brain, spine, thorax, heart and abdomen) were calculated.

Results

During the study period, 136 cases underwent both PM-US and PM-MRI, of which 88 (64.7%) also underwent autopsy. There was no significant difference in the rates of concordance with autopsy between the two modalities for overall diagnosis (PM-US, 86.4% (95% CI, 77.7-92.0%) vs PM-MRI, 88.6% (95% CI, 80.3-93.7%)) or in the sensitivities and specificities for individual anatomical regions. There were more non-diagnostic PM-US than PM-MRI examinations for the brain (22.8% vs 3.7%) and heart (14.7% vs 5.1%). If an 'imaging-only' autopsy had been performed, PM-US would have achieved the same diagnosis as 1.5-T PM-MRI in 86.8% (95% CI, 80.0-91.5%) of cases, with the highest rates of agreement being for spine (99.3% (95% CI, 95.9-99.9%)) and cardiac (97.3% (95% CI, 92.4-99.1%)) findings and the lowest being for brain diagnoses (85.2% (95% CI, 76.9-90.8%)).

Conclusion

Although there were fewer non-diagnostic cases using PM-MRI than for PM-US, the high concordance rate for overall diagnosis suggests that PM-US could be used for triaging cases when PM-MRI access is limited or unavailable. © 2020 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

SUBMITTER: Shelmerdine SC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8432154 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive or minimally invasive autopsy techniques in deaths under 1 year of age.DesignThis is a systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy. The protocol is registered on PROSPERO.ParticipantsDeaths from conception to one adjusted year of age.Search methodsMEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), the Cochrane Library, Scopus and grey literature sources were searched from inception to November 2021.Diagnostic testsNon-invasive or minimally invasive diagnostic tests as an alternative to traditional autopsy.Data collection and analysisStudies were included if participants were under one adjusted year of age, with index tests conducted prior to the reference standard.Data were extracted from eligible studies using piloted forms. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. A narrative synthesis was conducted following the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis guidelines. Vote counting was used to assess the direction of effect.Main outcome measuresDirection of effect was expressed as percentage of patients per study.FindingsWe included 54 direct evidence studies (68 articles/trials), encompassing 3268 cases and eight index tests. The direction of effect was positive for postmortem ultrasound and antenatal echography, although with varying levels of success. Conversely, the direction of effect was against virtual autopsy. For the remaining tests, the direction of effect was inconclusive.A further 134 indirect evidence studies (135 articles/trials) were included, encompassing 6242 perinatal cases. The addition of these results had minimal impact on the direct findings yet did reveal other techniques, which may be favourable alternatives to autopsy.Seven trial registrations were included but yielded no results.ConclusionsCurrent evidence is insufficient to make firm conclusions about the generalised use of non-invasive or minimally invasive autopsy techniques in relation to all perinatal population groups.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021223254.