Back to Search
Start Over
Diagnostic accuracy of postmortem ultrasound vs postmortem 1.5‐T MRI for non‐invasive perinatal autopsy
- Source :
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Publication Year :
- 2021
- Publisher :
- John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2021.
-
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.
- Subjects :
- Thorax
Adult
medicine.medical_specialty
Concordance
Perinatal Death
Autopsy
Sensitivity and Specificity
03 medical and health sciences
0302 clinical medicine
autopsy
Fetus
Obstetrics and gynaecology
Pregnancy
medicine
Humans
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging
030212 general & internal medicine
Prospective Studies
Medical diagnosis
perinatal
Ultrasonography
Original Paper
030219 obstetrics & reproductive medicine
Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
medicine.diagnostic_test
business.industry
ultrasound
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Reproducibility of Results
Magnetic resonance imaging
General Medicine
Original Papers
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
medicine.anatomical_structure
pediatric
Reproductive Medicine
Cohort
Abdomen
Female
Radiology
business
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 14690705 and 09607692
- Volume :
- 57
- Issue :
- 3
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....008382e9d1ee020034d0a97ded87fb96