Citation: Bassat Q, Castillo P, Alonso PL, Ordi J, Menéndez C (2016) Resuscitating the Dying Autopsy. PLoS Med 13(1): e1001927. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001927
Published: January 12, 2016
Copyright: © 2016 Bassat et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Funding: The CaDMIA research project (validation of the minimally invasive autopsy tool for cause of death investigation in developing countries) is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Global Health grant number OPP1067522) and by Spain’s Instituto de Salud Carlos III (FIS, PI12/00757). PC is hired by means of the BMGF Global health Grant funds. QB, JO and CM are co-principal investigators of the CaDMIA research project. QB has a fellowship from the program Miguel Servet of the ISCIII (Plan Nacional de I+D+I 2008-2011, grant number: CP11/00269). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: I have read the journal's policy and have the following conflicts: CM is a member of the Editorial Board of PLOS Medicine.
Abbreviations: CoD, cause of death; LIC, low-income country; MIA, minimally invasive autopsy; VA, verbal autopsy
Provenance: Commissioned; Externally peer-reviewed
- Despite the relevant information that postmortem examinations can provide, autopsy rates have been declining worldwide in the last few decades.
- Autopsies are especially necessary in low-income countries, where reliable information on cause of death is much more limited and in vivo clinical diagnosis is hampered by the scarce availability of diagnostic tools.
- The use of the autopsy or of robust substitutes for this procedure needs to be encouraged as a mechanism for the continuous improvement of clinical diagnosis and as a complement for cause-of-death investigation and surveillance.
Why did the patient die? Throughout the history of medicine, the answer to this key question has often remained packed with uncertainties. These uncertainties can be generally resolved by conducting an autopsy. Autopsy, from the Greek autopsia (αUTOψία), literally means “seeing for one’s self” and refers to the dissection of the dead body to determine the cause of death (CoD) through the observation, following a systematic approach, of any macro- or microscopic pathological changes that illnesses produce in human beings ; other terms utilized include “postmortem examination” or “necropsy.” In this essay, we discuss the past, present, and future perspectives of clinical autopsies.
The Declining Rates in Autopsy Practice
Although autopsies have been conducted for centuries , their golden age can be traced back to the end of the 19th century, when autopsies moved out from anatomy theatres and private homes to hospitals and public mortuaries. In hospitals, autopsies evolved into a routine component of clinical practice, and the proportion of in-hospital deaths subjected to an autopsy was considered as an indicator of the quality of the hospital . By the beginning of the 1960s, autopsy rates started decreasing in the majority of rich countries [3–7], and the trend continues to this date. This decline was probably associated with the improvements in premortem clinical diagnosis that occurred at that time. From the clinician’s perspective, the increasing availability of a plethora of in vivo imaging and laboratory procedures [8,9] may have demoted the diagnostic potential of postmortem examinations, which would appear less necessary, a perception perhaps also shared by family members supposed to provide consent [10,11]. In this context, clinicians may also be reluctant or feel unqualified to undergo a burdensome consent process with the family of the deceased  or feel threatened by the auditing capacity of autopsies, which could reveal a previous medical and/or surgical malpractice [13,14].
The Importance of Post-mortem Examinations
In spite of the advances in diagnostic methods in recent decades, the autopsy, if performed well, remains, by consensus, the gold standard methodology for diagnosing most medical conditions . Antemortem diagnostic errors, detected during the autopsy as clinical-pathological discrepancies, are relatively frequent [15–17] and highlight the importance of this procedure in establishing the ultimate CoD. These diagnostic inaccuracies are considered to occur at even higher rates in low-income countries, where premortem diagnostic support is limited [18,19].
Autopsies have been, and still remain, an indispensable research tool. Many advances in medicine have been possible through postmortem methods, including the investigation of emerging infections, genetic or metabolic diseases, or transplant-associated lesions. The routine practice of autopsies offers also an important epidemiological window to the health status of populations. As an example, autopsies conducted in theoretically healthy young soldiers dying from injuries incurred during armed conflicts have confirmed an alarmingly high rate of atherosclerotic changes in the coronary arteries, long before ischemic heart disease becomes clinically apparent . Finally, autopsies are also important for the mourning families, who may find comfort after understanding what killed their beloved one and what can be done to prevent similar deaths and after being reassured that the clinical care provided was appropriate [3,11].
Autopsies Are Especially Necessary in Low-Income Countries
All of the aforementioned arguments supporting the need to foster postmortem examinations are valid for low-income countries (LICs). In these settings, where vital registration systems are fragile , access to health is uncertain, and morbidity surveillance is generally weak, autopsy data could potentially contribute to completing the CoD picture and provide very actionable information for health planning and prioritisation [22–24], at least for those preventable deaths affecting the most vulnerable populations. However, the feasibility of conducting autopsies in LICs for investigating causes of death faces notable barriers, including, among others, the lack of pathology expertise and infrastructures, the fact that many deaths occur outside of the health system , and cultural and/or religious apprehension leading to a poor acceptability of the traditional and highly disfiguring autopsy procedure [10,25]. The recognition of the significant public health value of conducting CoD surveillance in these settings has led to an increasing interest in developing alternatives to the autopsy that are acceptable at the community level but capable of providing robust aetiological data.
Alternatives for Settings Where the Autopsy Is Unacceptable
The WHO-recommended verbal autopsy (VA) tool is currently being utilized in resource-constrained settings for CoD surveillance . VA implies conducting a standardized interview with the family of the deceased and interpreting the data gathered in order to infer a possible CoD . VAs can be done long after death and are well accepted, but they have limited accuracy [27,28]. Initial validation studies in Africa showed that VAs were generally valid to get accurate information on the cause of children’s severe illnesses , and this led to their expansion in LICs as a means of determining CoD. However, although VAs can be done long after death and are well accepted, they have lately been shown to be less accurate than expected, especially for conditions with low specificity, such as those leading to perinatal and maternal deaths [27,28]. Current estimates of CoD from LICs rely on VAs or on clinical diagnoses, but both methods are prone to misclassification errors. Thus, knowledge of the main causes of death in those regions is rather poor, which is a critical limitation for prioritizing effective health programs and evaluating their impact [23,24]. Besides the VA, innovative strategies have been developed  for places where autopsies may be hampered by low acceptability. These methods should ideally provide results as similar to the conventional autopsy as possible. Imaging-based methods using magnetic resonance imaging, a computerized scanner, or ultrasounds  have been proposed . These methods offer advantages, including their noninvasive nature (this is the reason they are known as virtual autopsies or “virtopsies” ) and consequently are highly acceptable. However, their elevated costs and reliance on sophisticated equipment and skilled personnel are critical limitations for their generalized introduction, particularly in LICs . The minimally invasive autopsy (MIA), which may be used as a complement to these imaging techniques or independently of them [34,35], may represent a robust alternative to the conventional autopsy, and our team has been working in the last three years in the validation of its performance against the complete autopsy for CoD investigation in LIC [36,37]. MIA includes a compendium of postmortem sampling of key organs using fine biopsy needles, aiming at obtaining tissue fragments and body fluids for a thorough investigation of the CoD. Its nondisfiguring nature, shorter duration, and technical simplicity, in addition to its higher level of safety, are additional advantages of the procedure. Moreover, MIA offers the possibility of assessing the samples obtained for the presence of microorganisms, something seldom possible in the conventional autopsy on account of the high contamination rate ensuing from the dissection of the body. Importantly, MIAs could also provide a set of invaluable validation data for other methods such as the VA, which will surely continue to play a major role for CoD surveillance in LICs, enhancing their diagnostic accuracy by improving data capture instruments and analytical algorithms for their interpretation, something that the conventional autopsies have not been able to provide until now. The easiness of the MIA could be an essential component of the “democratization” of the methodology and will be indispensable for a future implementation as a surveillance tool in LICs. Validation of its performance against the complete autopsy and acceptability and feasibility studies to inform on the appropriate and locally tailored prerequisites for its application in different geographical, cultural, and religious backgrounds are needed.
The use of the autopsy or of robust substitutes for this procedure needs to be encouraged as a mechanism for the continuous improvement of clinical diagnosis and as a complement for CoD investigation and surveillance. While all the challenges facing the provision of autopsies in LICs cannot be immediately solved, methods such as the MIA could easily be implemented on a wider scale, coupled with programs to ensure the building of capacity for local pathologists; this would surely contribute to reducing the stigma that postmortem practices currently involve. In high-income countries, reappraisal of the role of the autopsy is needed, and this will require that both the general public and the medical community are resensitized about its individual potential and wider public health benefits.
All authors agreed upon the content of the manuscript before the first version was written. QB and PC drafted the first version of the manuscript. CM, PA, and JO subsequently reviewed this first draft, and provided comments and suggestions. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript (and subsequent modifications) submitted to the journal. All authors have read, and confirm that they meet, ICMJE criteria for authorship.
- 1. King LS, Meehan MC. A history of the autopsy. A review. Am J Pathol. 1973;73(2):514–44. Epub 1973/11/01. pmid:4586127; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC1904067.
- 2. Burton JL. A bite into the history of the autopsy: From ancient roots to modern decay. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2005;1(4):277–84. Epub 2005/12/01. doi: 10.1385/fsmp:1:4:277 pmid:25868447.
- 3. Burton JL, Underwood J. Clinical, educational, and epidemiological value of autopsy. Lancet. 2007;369(9571):1471–80. Epub 2007/05/01. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60376-6 pmid:17467518.
- 4. Chariot P, Witt K, Pautot V, Porcher R, Thomas G, Zafrani ES, et al. Declining autopsy rate in a French hospital: physician's attitudes to the autopsy and use of autopsy material in research publications. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2000;124(5):739–45. Epub 2000/04/27. pmid:10782159.
- 5. Start RD, McCulloch TA, Benbow EW, Lauder I, Underwood JC. Clinical necropsy rates during the 1980s: the continued decline. J Pathol. 1993;171(1):63–6. Epub 1993/09/01. doi: 10.1002/path.1711710113 pmid:8229459.
- 6. Shojania KG, Burton EC. The vanishing nonforensic autopsy. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(9):873–5. Epub 2008/02/29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp0707996. pmid:18305264
- 7. Xiao J, Krueger GR, Buja LM, Covinsky M. The impact of declining clinical autopsy: need for revised healthcare policy. Am J Med Sci. 2009;337(1):41–6. Epub 2009/01/22. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e318184ce2b pmid:19155753.
- 8. Ayoub T, Chow J. The conventional autopsy in modern medicine. J R Soc Med. 2008;101(4):177–81. Epub 2008/04/05. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.070479 pmid:18387908; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2312379.
- 9. Burton EC, Phillips RS, Covinsky KE, Sands LP, Goldman L, Dawson NV, et al. The relation of autopsy rate to physicians' beliefs and recommendations regarding autopsy. Am J Med. 2004;117(4):255–61. Epub 2004/08/17. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.01.028 pmid:15308435.
- 10. Lishimpi K, Chintu C, Lucas S, Mudenda V, Kaluwaji J, Story A, et al. Necropsies in African children: consent dilemmas for parents and guardians. Archives of disease in childhood. 2001;84(6):463–7. Epub 2001/05/23. pmid:11369557; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1718810.
- 11. McPhee SJ, Bottles K, Lo B, Saika G, Crommie D. To redeem them from death. Reactions of family members to autopsy. Am J Med. 1986;80(4):665–71. Epub 1986/04/01. pmid:3963043.
- 12. Loughrey MB, McCluggage WG, Toner PG. The declining autopsy rate and clinicians' attitudes. Ulster Med J. 2000;69(2):83–9. Epub 2001/02/24. pmid:11196736; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2449188.
- 13. Philippe Charlier, Lorin de la Grandmaison Geoffroy, Christian Herve. Two Centuries of Autopsies in the New England Journal of Medicine: Evolution of the Status of the Cadaver in Occidental Medicine (1812–2012). Anthropology. 2013;1(2).
- 14. Shojania KG, Burton EC. The persistent value of the autopsy. Am Fam Physician. 2004;69(11):2540–2. Epub 2004/06/19. pmid:15202690.
- 15. Combes A, Mokhtari M, Couvelard A, Trouillet JL, Baudot J, Henin D, et al. Clinical and autopsy diagnoses in the intensive care unit: a prospective study. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(4):389–92. Epub 2004/02/26. doi: 10.1001/archinte.164.4.389 pmid:14980989.
- 16. Roulson J, Benbow EW, Hasleton PS. Discrepancies between clinical and autopsy diagnosis and the value of post mortem histology; a meta-analysis and review. Histopathology. 2005;47(6):551–9. Epub 2005/12/06. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02243.x pmid:16324191.
- 17. Shojania KG, Burton EC, McDonald KM, Goldman L. Changes in rates of autopsy-detected diagnostic errors over time: a systematic review. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association. 2003;289(21):2849–56. Epub 2003/06/05. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.21.2849 pmid:12783916.
- 18. Ordi J, Ismail MR, Carrilho C, Romagosa C, Osman N, Machungo F, et al. Clinico-pathological discrepancies in the diagnosis of causes of maternal death in sub-Saharan Africa: retrospective analysis. PLoS Med. 2009;6(2):e1000036. Epub 2009/02/27. 08-PLME-RA-1964 [pii] doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000036 pmid:19243215; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2646780.
- 19. Taylor TE, Fu WJ, Carr RA, Whitten RO, Mueller JS, Fosiko NG, et al. Differentiating the pathologies of cerebral malaria by postmortem parasite counts. Nat Med. 2004;10(2):143–5. pmid:14745442.
- 20. Webber BJ, Seguin PG, Burnett DG, Clark LL, Otto JL. Prevalence of and risk factors for autopsy-determined atherosclerosis among US service members, 2001–2011. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association. 2012;308(24):2577–83. Epub 2012/12/27. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.70830 pmid:23268516.
- 21. Setel PW, Macfarlane SB, Szreter S, Mikkelsen L, Jha P, Stout S, et al. A scandal of invisibility: making everyone count by counting everyone. Lancet. 2007;370(9598):1569–77. Epub 2007/11/10. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61307-5 pmid:17992727.
- 22. Byass P. Who needs cause-of-death data? PLoS Med. 2007;4(11):e333. Epub 2007/11/23. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040333 pmid:18031198; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2082647.
- 23. Vogel G. Global health. How do you count the dead? Science. 2012;336(6087):1372–4. Epub 2012/06/16. doi: 10.1126/science.336.6087.1372 pmid:22700899.
- 24. Kean S. Cause of death. Science. 2015;347(6229):1410–3. Epub 2015/03/31. doi: 10.1126/science.347.6229.1410 pmid:25814566.
- 25. Oluwasola OA, Fawole OI, Otegbayo AJ, Ogun GO, Adebamowo CA, Bamigboye AE. The autopsy: knowledge, attitude, and perceptions of doctors and relatives of the deceased. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2009;133(1):78–82. Epub 2009/01/07. doi: 10.1043/1543-2165-133.1.78 pmid:19123741.
- 26. World Health Organization. Verbal Autopsy Standards: Ascertaining and attributing causes of death [http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/verbalautopsystandards/en%5D.
- 27. Edmond KM, Quigley MA, Zandoh C, Danso S, Hurt C, Owusu Agyei S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of verbal autopsies in ascertaining the causes of stillbirths and neonatal deaths in rural Ghana. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2008;22(5):417–29. Epub 2008/09/11. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2008.00962.x pmid:18782250.
- 28. Leitao J, Desai N, Aleksandrowicz L, Byass P, Miasnikof P, Tollman S, et al. Comparison of physician-certified verbal autopsy with computer-coded verbal autopsy for cause of death assignment in hospitalized patients in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review. BMC Med. 2014;12:22. Epub 2014/02/06. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-12-22 pmid:24495312; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3912516.
- 29. Alonso PL, Bowman A, Marsh K, Greenwood BM. The accuracy of the clinical histories given by mothers of seriously ill African children. Ann Trop Paediatr. 1987;7(3):187–9. Epub 1987/09/01. pmid:2445267.
- 30. Roberts WC. The autopsy: its decline and a suggestion for its revival. N Engl J Med. 1978;299(7):332–8. Epub 1978/08/17. doi: 10.1056/nejm197808172990704 pmid:683266.
- 31. Farina J, Millana C, Fdez-Acenero MJ, Furio V, Aragoncillo P, Martin VG, et al. Ultrasonographic autopsy (echopsy): a new autopsy technique. Virchows Arch. 2002;440(6):635–9. Epub 2002/06/19. doi: 10.1007/s00428-002-0607-z pmid:12070604.
- 32. Thayyil S, Cleary JO, Sebire NJ, Scott RJ, Chong K, Gunny R, et al. Post-mortem examination of human fetuses: a comparison of whole-body high-field MRI at 9.4 T with conventional MRI and invasive autopsy. Lancet. 2009;374(9688):467–75. Epub 2009/08/12. S0140-6736(09)60913-2 [pii] doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60913-2 pmid:19665645.
- 33. Dirnhofer R, Jackowski C, Vock P, Potter K, Thali MJ. VIRTOPSY: minimally invasive, imaging-guided virtual autopsy. Radiographics: a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 2006;26(5):1305–33. Epub 2006/09/16. doi: 10.1148/rg.265065001 pmid:16973767.
- 34. Weustink AC, Hunink MG, van Dijke CF, Renken NS, Krestin GP, Oosterhuis JW. Minimally invasive autopsy: an alternative to conventional autopsy? Radiology. 2009;250(3):897–904. Epub 2009/02/27. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2503080421 pmid:19244053.
- 35. Whitby E. Minimally invasive autopsy. Lancet. 2009;374(9688):432–3. Epub 2009/08/12. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61433-1 pmid:19665631.
- 36. Bassat Q, Ordi J, Vila J, Ismail MR, Carrilho C, Lacerda M, et al. Development of a post-mortem procedure to reduce the uncertainty regarding causes of death in developing countries. The Lancet Global health. 2013;1(3):e125–6. Epub 2014/08/12. doi: 10.1016/s2214-109x(13)70037-8 pmid:25104253.
- 37. Castillo P, Ussene E, Ismail MR, Jordao D, Lovane L, Carrilho C, et al. Pathological Methods Applied to the Investigation of Causes of Death in Developing Countries: Minimally Invasive Autopsy Approach. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(6):e0132057. Epub 2015/07/01. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132057 pmid:26126191; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4488344.