RESUMO
Postmortem studies are crucial for providing insight into emergent diseases. However, a complete autopsy is frequently not feasible in highly transmissible diseases due to biohazard challenges. Minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) is a needle-based approach aimed at collecting samples of key organs without opening the body, which may be a valid alternative in these cases. We aimed to: (a) provide biosafety guidelines for conducting MIAs in COVID-19 cases, (b) compare the performance of MIA versus complete autopsy, and (c) evaluate the safety of the procedure. Between October and December 2020, MIAs were conducted in six deceased patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, in a basic autopsy room, with reinforced personal protective equipment. Samples from the lungs and key organs were successfully obtained in all cases. A complete autopsy was performed on the same body immediately after the MIA. The diagnoses of the MIA matched those of the complete autopsy. In four patients, COVID-19 was the main cause of death, being responsible for the different stages of diffuse alveolar damage. No COVID-19 infection was detected in the personnel performing the MIAs or complete autopsies. In conclusion, MIA might be a feasible, adequate and safe alternative for cause of death investigation in COVID-19 cases.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Even though bleeding and thromboembolic events are major complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), data on the incidence of venous thrombosis (VT) and thromboembolism (VTE) under ECMO are scarce. This study analyzes the incidence and predictors of VTE in patients treated with ECMO due to respiratory failure. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients treated on ECMO in our center from 04/2010 to 11/2015. Patients with thromboembolic events prior to admission were excluded. Diagnosis was made by imaging in survivors and postmortem examination in deceased patients. RESULTS: Out of 102 screened cases, 42 survivors and 21 autopsy cases [mean age 46.0 ± 14.4 years; 37 (58.7 %) males] fulfilling the above-mentioned criteria were included. Thirty-four patients (54.0 %) underwent ECMO therapy due to ARDS, and 29 patients (46.0 %) with chronic organ failure were bridged to lung transplantation. Despite systemic anticoagulation at a mean PTT of 50.6 ± 12.8 s, [VT/VTE 47.0 ± 12.3 s and no VT/VTE 53.63 ± 12.51 s (p = 0.037)], VT and/or VTE was observed in 29 cases (46.1 %). The rate of V. cava thrombosis was 15/29 (51.7 %). Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism prevailed in deceased patients [5/21 (23.8 %) vs. 2/42 (4.8 %) (p = 0.036)]. In a multivariable analysis, only aPTT and time on ECMO predicted VT/VTE. There was no difference in the incidence of clinically diagnosed VT in ECMO survivors and autopsy findings. CONCLUSIONS: Venous thrombosis and thromboembolism following ECMO therapy are frequent. Quality of anticoagulation and ECMO runtime predicted thromboembolic events.
