Who Is at Risk for Diagnostic Discrepancies? Comparison of Pre- and Postmortal Diagnoses in 1800 Patients of 3 Medical Decades in East and West Berlin

<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Autopsy rates in Western countries consistently decline to an average of <5%, although clinical autopsies represent a reasonable tool for quality control in hospitals, medically and economically. Comparing pre- and postmortal diagnoses, diagnostic discrepancies as uncovered by clinical autopsies supply crucial information on how to improve clinical treatment. The study aimed at analyzing current diagnostic discrepancy rates, investigating their influencing factors and identifying risk profiles of patients that could be affected by a diagnostic discrepancy.</p> <h3>Methods and Findings</h3><p>Of all adult autopsy cases of the Charité Institute of Pathology from the years 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003 and 2008, the pre- and postmortal diagnoses and all demographic data were analyzed retrospectively. Based on power analysis, 1,800 cases were randomly selected to perform discrepancy classification (class I-VI) according to modified Goldman criteria. The rate of discrepancies in major diagnoses (class I) was 10.7% (95% CI: 7.7%–14.7%) in 2008 representing a reduction by 15.1%. Subgroup analysis revealed several influencing factors to significantly correlate with the discrepancy rate. Cardiovascular diseases had the highest frequency among class-I-discrepancies. Comparing the 1988-data of East- and West-Berlin, no significant differences were found in diagnostic discrepancies despite an autopsy rate differing by nearly 50%. A risk profile analysis visualized by intuitive heatmaps revealed a significantly high discrepancy rate in patients treated in low or intermediate care units at community hospitals. In this collective, patients with genitourinary/renal or infectious diseases were at particularly high risk.</p> <h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This is the current largest and most comprehensive study on diagnostic discrepancies worldwide. Our well-powered analysis revealed a significant rate of class-I-discrepancies indicating that autopsies are still of value. The identified risk profiles may aid both pathologists and clinicians to identify patients at increased risk for a discrepant diagnosis and possibly suboptimal treatment intra vitam.</p> </div

Perioperative fluid and volume management: physiological basis, tools and strategies

Fluid and volume therapy is an important cornerstone of treating critically ill patients in the intensive care unit and in the operating room. New findings concerning the vascular barrier, its physiological functions, and its role regarding vascular leakage have lead to a new view of fluid and volume administration. Avoiding hypervolemia, as well as hypovolemia, plays a pivotal role when treating patients both perioperatively and in the intensive care unit. The various studies comparing restrictive vs. liberal fluid and volume management are not directly comparable, do not differ (in most instances) between colloid and crystalloid administration, and mostly do not refer to the vascular barrier's physiologic basis. In addition, very few studies have analyzed the use of advanced hemodynamic monitoring for volume management

The design and evaluation of a shaped filter collection device to sample and store defined volume dried blood spots from finger pricks.

BACKGROUND: Dried blood spots are a common medium for collecting patient blood prior to testing for malaria by molecular methods. A new shaped filter device for the quick and simple collection of a designated volume of patient blood has been designed and tested against conventional blood spots for accuracy and precision. METHODS: Shaped filter devices were laser cut from Whatman GB003 paper to absorb a 20 μl blood volume. These devices were used to sample Plasmodium falciparum infected blood and the volume absorbed was measured volumetrically. Conventional blood spots were made by pipetting 20 μl of the same blood onto Whatman 3MM paper. DNA was extracted from both types of dried blood spot using Qiagen DNA blood mini or Chelex extraction for real-time PCR analysis, and PURE extraction for malaria LAMP testing. RESULTS: The shaped filter devices collected a mean volume of 21.1 μl of blood, with a coefficient of variance of 8.1%. When used for DNA extraction by Chelex and Qiagen methodologies the mean number of international standard units of P. falciparum DNA recovered per μl of the eluate was 53.1 (95% CI: 49.4 to 56.7) and 32.7 (95% CI: 28.8 to 36.6), respectively for the shaped filter device, and 54.6 (95% CI: 52.1 to 57.1) and 12.0 (95% CI: 9.9 to 14.1), respectively for the 3MM blood spots. Qiagen extraction of 200 μl of whole infected blood yielded 853.6 international standard units of P. falciparum DNA per μl of eluate. CONCLUSIONS: A shaped filter device provides a simple way to quickly sample and store a defined volume of blood without the need for any additional measuring devices. Resultant dried blood spots may be employed for DNA extraction using a variety of technologies for nucleic acid amplification without the need for repeated cleaning of scissors or punches to prevent cross contamination of samples and results are comparable to traditional DBS