[Sepsis and septic shock : Overview after sepsis-3 and the requirements of the clinician regarding the autopsy of critically ill patients]

Sepsis and underlying comorbidities in intensive care unit patients : Analysis of the cause of death by different clinicians-a pilot study

BACKGROUND

There is an ongoing debate as to whether death with sepsis is primarily caused by sepsis or, more often, by the underlying disease. There are no data on the influence of a researcher's background on such an assessment. Therefore, the aim of this analysis was to assess the cause of death in sepsis and the influence of an investigator's professional background on such an assessment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational cohort study of sepsis patients treated in the medical intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary care center. For deceased patients, comorbidities and severity of illness were documented. The cause of death (sepsis or comorbidities or both combined) was independently assessed by four assessors with different professional backgrounds (medical student, senior physician in the medical ICU, anesthesiological intensivist, and senior physician specialized in the predominant comorbidity).

RESULTS

In all, 78 of 235 patients died in hospital. Agreement between assessors about cause of death was low (κ 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.29-0.44). Depending on the assessor, sepsis was the sole cause of death in 6-12% of cases, sepsis and comorbidities in 54-76%, and comorbidities alone in 18-40%.

CONCLUSIONS

In a relevant proportion of patients with sepsis treated in the medical ICU, comorbidities contribute significantly to mortality, and death from sepsis without relevant comorbidities is a rare event. Designation of the cause of death in sepsis patients is highly subjective and may be influenced by the professional background of the assessor.

Post-Mortem Examination as a Quality Improvement Instrument

BACKGROUND

Autopsies are considered an important quality assurance instrument in medicine, yet autopsy rates in many countries have been declining for many years. The proper role of the post-mortem examination in modern medicine is a matter deserving of study.

METHODS

This review is based on a selective search of the literature for publications on the role of autopsies as a quality assurance instrument.

RESULTS

Multiple studies have revealed substantial rates of discrepancy between pre- and post-mortem diagnoses, with reported rates lying in the range of 10% to 40%. The frequen- cy of so-called Goldman I erroneous diagnoses, i.e., those that are determined at autopsy and might have influenced the patient's survival, ranges from 2.4% to 10.7%. It can be as- sumed that the rate of serious diagnostic errors revealed by autopsy would fall if autopsy rates were to rise. Independently of the above-mentioned studies, a large-scale study of data from the period 1988-2008 revealed a decline in the rate of Goldman I erroneous diagnoses by more than half. The qualitative effects of autopsies, however, are difficult to measure. At present, imaging studies and minimally invasive or endoscopic diagnostic procedures can be performed post mortem as well, but the available studies show that these methods do not yet suffice to enable a coherent pathogenetic classification of disease processes.

CONCLUSION

Autopsies should still be performed in the interest of quality assurance in medicine. Uniform standards in the performance and reporting of autopsies could lead to im- provement in the use of the data acquired through them.

[Consequences of autopsies for the living : Causes of death in the clinical diagnosis "septic and toxic shock"]

BACKGROUND

There is reason to believe that the diagnosis of septic and toxic shock, as indicated on the death certificate, cannot be confirmed as the cause of death without autopsy and subsequent histological analysis. The external examination of the corpse can therefore not represent the sole basis for a reliable statement about the infection status of a corpse, e. g. as a prerequisite for embalming.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The validity of autopsy in determining septic and toxic shock as the cause of death is demonstrated in 7 exemplary cases.

RESULTS

Decades of experience in a university pathology institute have shown that an external examination of the corpse alone is not suitable for certifying the cause of death if an infectious disease is suspected. Consequently, only autopsy with subsequent histological analysis provides reliable statements on the etiopathogenesis of the underlying process. Possible problems and discrepancies between clinical and pathological diagnoses are discussed on the basis of several cases with or without autoptic confirmation of the septic shock. The case of a missionary from Africa infected with Lassa virus serves to point out the seriousness of the threat an undiagnosed infection may represent to the attending staff.

CONCLUSION

During the treatment of patients suspected to have an infectious cause of fever of unknown origin, compliance with the usual safety regulations, including adequate disinfecting measures, is essential. In cases with fatal outcome, not infrequently under the clinical picture of a septic and toxic shock, autopsy should be regularly performed to confirm the type of infection and the infectious cause of death. Rapid and open communication between the professional groups involved plays a crucial role in this process.