Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

Autopsy has been important in medicine since the 15th century¹ and has contributed greatly to clinical knowledge.^2-4 Neonatal autopsy has a particularly valuable role in the counselling of families after the loss of an infant as it can help the grieving process, improve parental understanding, and alleviate concerns over prenatal events.^5-9 Genetic conditions or obstetric factors of relevance to future pregnancies may also be identified.¹⁰

Recently the rate and perceived importance of autopsies of adults has declined considerably.^11-14 Conversely rates of neonatal autopsy have generally remained higher, with previous reports ranging from 59% to 81%. ^{3 10 13-17} In 2000, however, the neonatal autopsy rate declined in Illinois.¹⁸ Parental consent is thought to be the major limiting factor.¹⁶ The public's exposure to the purposes and value of the autopsy is sparse, and perceptions are often dominated by melodramatic treatment in the media.¹⁹

We measured the rate of neonatal autopsy at a tertiary referral centre over the past decade to investigate the role of various factors in determining consent for autopsy. We also examined the yield of new information in terms of discordance between diagnoses before and after death.

	Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

We carried out the study in a neonatal unit in the main tertiary neonatal referral centre for the south east of Scotland. We included records of all deaths in the neonatal unit from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1999. The policy in the unit is that a senior clinician, normally the relevant consultant, approaches relatives for consent for autopsy after each death. Autopsies were performed only after parental consent or at the request of the procurator fiscal. Each examination was performed by one of four consultant paediatric pathologists using standard techniques.²⁰

We recorded the cause of death from the original death certificate, which was normally completed by a consultant. We obtained maternal and infant details from the original medical records and abstracted autopsy findings from the concluding summary of the pathologist's report. Death certificates were not available for 1990-2; in these cases the cause of death was determined by a consultant neonatologist after review of the patients' records.

We used a modified version of previously published schemes ^{11 18} to classify the concordance between autopsy findings and diagnoses before death (table 1). We compared the proportion of events in each group using the ² test for discrete variables and Student's t test for numerical variables.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

In over a quarter of cases new information was obtained at autopsy (see table A on bmj.com for further details). A single class Ia diagnosis of sigmoid volvulus was identified along with five class Ib diagnoses with implications for genetic advicenamely, Smith-Lemli-Opitz type II syndrome, De Lange's syndrome, ornithine carbamyltransferase deficiency, DiGeorge syndrome, and GM₁ gangliosidosis. An autopsy was performed in 209 of the 314 cases studied (see table B on bmj.com). The overall rate of neonatal autopsy of 67% remained substantially higher than the prevailing rate in adults. From 1994 onwards, however, the annual autopsy rates dropped below levels earlier in the decade (figure). Gestational age was the only factor that was found to differ significantly between the groups who did and did not give permission for autopsy, with means of 32 and 30 weeks respectively (table 2). Details of other factors that we examined and that were not associated with consent for autopsy can be found in table C on bmj.com.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Autopsy rate in neonatal unit (1990-9)

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

Earlier studies have reported higher yields of new information from neonatal autopsies, ranging from 34% to 48%, though classification criteria and procedures varied between publications. ^{10 13-15 18 21} In our study a single observer classified the level of concordance between diagnoses before death and at autopsy. Review by a multidisciplinary team, including a pathologist, may have resulted in a higher yield. We abstracted clinical diagnoses from the death certificates when they were available. The reliability of death certificates largely depends on how accurately clinicians record clinical information.²² In Edinburgh certificates were normally completed after consideration of the case by the consultant in charge.

Demographic features such as the sex of the infant and maternal age or marital status have never been identified as significant determinants of consent for neonatal autopsy. ^{3 16 17} VanMarter et al¹⁷ and Maniscalco and Clarke³ also found gestational age to be a significant factor. Possibly clinicians are less likely to encourage parents to give consent for autopsy in extremely preterm infants.¹⁷ In general the strength of requests for individual autopsies is likely to vary because clinicians will have different views as to its importance in a specific case.

The finding that in about a quarter of cases new information was gained is likely to be of use to bereaved families when they are considering permission for an autopsy. The proportion of neonatal deaths attributed to major genetic or congenital abnormalities has increased. Accurate diagnosis in such cases, either before or after death, is highly important for future counselling. Information obtained at autopsy may not have directly affected clinical management but is essential for audit or educational purposes.²¹ Arguably the greatest value of the neonatal autopsy is to families during the grieving process. Such unique benefits are far more difficult to quantify. ^{9 23}

The apparent reduction in the neonatal autopsy rate in Edinburgh over the decade studied warrants serious debate. There is no obvious single explanation but possible influences include a shift in the attitude of clinicians towards autopsies or a change in the public's willingness to grant permission. Economic or procedural considerations did not feature during the period studied. The recent high profile disclosure concerning organ retention in the United Kingdom²⁴ can only have served to harm the public's view of autopsies. A concerted effort will be needed to promote the value and purposes of the neonatal autopsy.

	Acknowledgments

We thank Gill Mitchell for her invaluable help in tracing patient records. We are grateful to Professor Neil McIntosh for his comments on the original protocol.

Contributors: MB contributed to the planning of the study, collated and analysed the data, and wrote the paper. This project began as a special study module part of the University of Edinburgh phase III MBChB course. IAL supervised the planning and execution of the study, contributed to the writing of the paper, and will act as guarantor. JWK and KJMcK provided advice during the study and commented on the paper.

	Footnotes

Editorial by Khong

Funding: None.

Competing interests: None declared.

Three tables with further data can be found on bmj.com

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

1.	Dorsey DB. A perspective on the autopsy. Am J Clin Pathol 1977; 69: 217-219[Web of Science].
2.	Landefeld CS, Chren MM, Myers A, Geller R, Robbins S, Goldman L. Diagnostic yield of the autopsy in a university hospital and a community hospital. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 1249-1254[Abstract].
3.	Maniscalco WM, Clarke TA. Factors influencing neonatal autopsy rate. Am J Dis Child 1982; 136: 781-784[Abstract/Free Full Text].
4.	Berthrong M. The autopsy as a vehicle for the lifetime education of pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1984; 108: 506-509[Web of Science][Medline].
5.	Hirsch CS. Talking to the family after an autopsy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1984; 108: 513-514[Web of Science][Medline].
6.	Reynolds RC. Autopsiesbenefits to the family. Am J Clin Pathol 1977; 69: 220-222[Web of Science].
7.	Rowe J, Clyman R, Green C, Mikkelsen C, Haight J, Ataide L. Follow-up of families who experience a perinatal death. Pediatrics 1978; 62: 166-170[Abstract/Free Full Text].
8.	Valdes-Dapena M. The postautopsy conference with families. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1984; 108: 497-498[Web of Science][Medline].
9.	Beckwith JB. The value of the pediatric postmortem examination. Pediatr Clin North Am 1989; 36: 29-35[Web of Science][Medline].
10.	Saller Jr DN, Lesser KB, Harrel U, Rogers BB, Oyer CE. The clinical utility of the perinatal autopsy. JAMA 1995; 273: 663-665[Abstract/Free Full Text].
11.	Goldman L, Sayson R, Robbins S, Cohn LH, Bettmann M, Weisberg M. The value of the autopsy in three medical eras. N Engl J Med 1983; 308: 1000-1005[Abstract].
12.	Burrows S. The postmortem examination. Scientific necessity or folly? JAMA 1975; 233: 441-443[Abstract/Free Full Text].
13.	Dhar V, Perlman M, Vilela MI, Haque KN, Kirpalani H, Cutz E. Autopsy in a neonatal intensive care unit: utilization patterns and associations of clinicopathologic discordances. J Pediatr 1998; 132: 75-79[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline].
14.	Meier PR, Manchester DK, Shikes RH, Clewell WH, Stewart M. Perinatal autopsy: its clinical value. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 349-351[Web of Science][Medline].
15.	Craft H, Brazy JE. Autopsyhigh yield in neonatal population. Am J Dis Child 1986; 140: 1260-1262[Abstract/Free Full Text].
16.	Khong TY, Mansor FAW, Staples AJ. Are perinatal autopsy rates satisfactory? Med J Austr 1995; 162: 469-470.
17.	VanMarter LJ, Taylor F, Epstein MF. Parental and physician-related determinants of consent for neonatal autopsy. Am J Dis Child 1987; 141: 149-153[Abstract/Free Full Text].
18.	Kumar P, Angst DB, Taxy J, Mangurten HH. Neonatal autopsies: a 10-year experience. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2000; 154: 38-42[Abstract/Free Full Text].
19.	Brown HG. Lay perceptions of autopsy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1984; 108: 446-448[Web of Science][Medline].
20.	Keeling JW. The perinatal necropsy. In: Keeling JW, ed. Fetal and neonatal pathology. London: Springer, 1987.
21.	Porter HJ, Keeling JW. Value of perinatal necropsy examination. J Clin Pathol 1987; 40: 180-184[Abstract/Free Full Text].
22.	Kircher LT. Autopsy and mortality statistics: making a difference. JAMA 1992; 267: 1264-1268[CrossRef][Medline].
23.	Berger LR. Requesting the autopsy: A pediatric perspective: psycho-social and professional aspects of the autopsy in caring for the dying child and his family. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1978; 17: 445-452.
24.	Hunter M. Alder Hey report condemns doctors, management, and coroner. BMJ 2001; 322: 255[Free Full Text].

(Accepted 5 November 2001)