Journal of Forensic Pathology

Investigation of Sudden Unexpected Infant Deaths and Autopsy Practices

Priyanshu Sharma^{* *}Correspondence: Priyanshu Sharma, Department of Biotechnology Meerut Institute of Enginering Technology, India, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

Findings from death scene investigations (DSI) and autopsies offer crucial details that may illuminate why some newborns pass away abruptly and unexpectedly. In 2013, there were 3434 Sudden Unexpected Newborn Deaths (SUIDs) reported in the US, making up 14.6% of all infant fatalities. The majority of SUIDs are unattended, and the causes of these fatalities are frequently not fully explained by the results of autopsies alone. The death certifier may be able to differentiate between Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and other causes of death, such as accidental suffocation, with the aid of a thorough DSI that includes a thorough description of any obstructions to the infant's airway and potential dangers in the sleep environment. despite the fact that the DSI and autopsy are crucial for determining the cause of death. Before the 1980s, the value of standardized protocols did not attract widespread attention. When they defined SIDS as "the sudden death of an infant under 1 year of age which remains unexplained after a thorough case investigation, including performance of a complete autopsy, examination of the death scene, and review of the clinical history," an expert panel in 1989 formally recognized the value of the DSI and autopsy. The Sudden Unexpected Infant Death Investigation Reporting Form (SUIDIRF), released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is a reporting form and set of instructions for SUID investigations. At the same time, a global SUID autopsy protocol was created by a number of forensic pathologists from different countries. After the SUIDIRF and the international autopsy protocol were published (starting around 1998), death certificate examiners recorded fewer SIDS cases and attributed more instances to accidental suffocation and unidentified reasons. This change in SIDS classification was probably driven by better case studies. Even after the necessity of DSI and autopsies was realized in the 1980s and protocols were developed in the 1990s, standard investigation procedures were not adopted right away. The percentage of SIDS decisions made without a DSI was unclear in 1992, despite the fact that autopsy were performed in around 90% of cases of SIDS. Only four states have defined guidelines specifically for SUID, and autopsy and DSI techniques differed considerably between jurisdictions. Less than two-thirds of US coroner and medical examiner offices reported having a DSI (60.9%) or autopsy (63.9%) policy for SUID by 2004 [1-4].

As a result of these findings, the CDC amended the 1996 SUIDIRF in 2006, created instructional materials, and held training sessions that ultimately attracted over 23 000 medicolegal experts. The "basic minimum" of a thorough SUID death inquiry was outlined by the National Association of Medical Examiners in 2007. We are not aware of any official review to determine the degree of variation in DSI and autopsy techniques between states and jurisdictions, despite the various initiatives to enhance SUID investigation practice. Death certificates normally state whether an autopsy was performed, but they do not specify whether a DSI was carried out or which parts of the autopsy and DSI were finished. The SUID Case Registry was created in collaboration with sponsored grantees by the CDC to improve the capacity of current child death review (CDR) programs to conduct thorough population-based surveillance of SUID data, including details on DSI and autopsy procedures. In seven states that are a member of the CDC's SUID Case Registry, we discuss and compare the frequency of DSI and autopsy performance procedures for SUID cases.

It is easier to comprehend the circumstances surrounding SUID and diagnose its causes when extensive and reliable DSI and autopsy procedures are used. The ability to track trends and create potent preventative plans is enhanced by having accurate and trustworthy data regarding SUID instances, which ultimately results in a decline in SUID. This study serves as a baseline to comprehend the breadth of investigations into newborn deaths in particular US states. Though almost all SUID instances had an autopsy (100%) and a DSI (98%) the details of the investigation differed. Blood chemistry (41%) and genetic testing (23%) were the postmortem procedures that were carried out the least frequently. These tests, however, should only be carried out when necessary and under specific conditions. A recent study on infectious disease testing for SUID demonstrated how test perceived usefulness affects test performance. The DSI components that are tested the least frequently are typical sleep position (63%), and typical sleep place (73%) The regular sleep place and position are crucial variables to record because they are connected with a higher risk of SIDS20. Death certifiers, however, may utilize the variable new or different environment than normal when the usual sleep spot and position are not accessible because it was available in 92% of cases [5-6].

There were still several DSI components for which the proportion of performance is not 100%, despite the fact that the performance of a DSI and an autopsy were practically universal in our study, a significant improvement from prior decades the best. Fewer than half of cases had access to any scene reconstruction (45%), particularly one with a doll (37%), which can be crucial to understanding airway obstruction and the function of potential risks in the sleep environment [8-10].

In 73% of the cases, there was no information on the infant's airway at the time of discovery, which is also crucial to understanding the circumstances of the death. Parents or emergency medical staff may have moved the infant swiftly without documenting its position, rendering this information unavailable. The observed differences in reporting performance of DSI and autopsy components between states probably reflect genuine practice because the analysis of missing/unknown responses revealed high data quality (i.e., few missing and unknown replies). The information used in these studies was not gathered through primary data collecting but rather was aggregated from a number of sources. Understanding the causes of the reporting variations and missing/unknown responses is therefore outside the scope of these data, but could be attributed to a variety of factors, such as varying autopsy and DSI protocols, variations in the data collection and entry capabilities of the CDR teams, and the availability of resources [11-12].

Conclusion

States included in the study have systems for county coroners, county medical examiners, regional offices managed by state medical examiners, combined systems for county coroners and medical examiners, state medical examiner systems, and mixed systems for state and county medical examiners. This study demonstrates that documenting thorough and comprehensive autopsies and DSIs is possible across all types of medicolegal systems, despite minor variations in the percentages of autopsy components reported depending on the type of system. Our study's only 7 states are represented, which limits its generalizability to the entire US. Additionally, statistics were not vetted because we depended on information provided by state and local CDR teams. The majority of reported material was based on abstracted and summarized data from many sources and discussions among diverse specialists who frequently had firsthand knowledge of the situations, therefore it is likely that the provided data were reliable.

Furthermore, by constructing composite variables that took into account the answers to numerous related questions, we were better able to assess the accuracy of the completeness of the DSI and autopsy components. The DSI and autopsy components would also be underreported if there were reporting biases since it is more likely that a component was conducted but not documented than that it was documented but not conducted. Grantees of the SUID Case Registry assess the gaps in case investigations, and they collaborate with CDR teams and medicolegal experts to put improvements in place for the consistency and thoroughness of DSI and autopsies. For instance, some funders give medical examiner offices the tools they need to look into and evaluate SUID cases. In order to underline what information is crucial to record at an infant death scene, how to complete the SUIDIRF or jurisdictional equivalent, and how to carry out a scene re-creation using a doll, other grantees enable trainings for medical examiners, coroners, and death investigators. Additionally, grantees have given out DSI kits with dolls and cameras for recording scenario recreations. With the aid of these technologies, investigators can capture the most crucial details from the scene of the death, such as the infant's airway when it is discovered. Future research using the SUID Case Registry data could examine how these actions affect the development of better practices.

It is commonly known that the DSI and autopsy are crucial in determining the cause of death, and significant progress has been made in case investigation techniques. This study acts as a starting point to comprehend the range of inquiries into newborn deaths in particular states. It may be possible to learn more about the causes of SUID and get a better understanding of the risk and protective variables that are unique to each cause if DSI and autopsy procedures are standardized and comprehensive across jurisdictions and states. These data, which reflect a range of medicolegal systems, also show that it is possible to document thorough and exhaustive autopsies and DSIs in many different systems. Instructing system adjustments and advancements in DSI and autopsy methods as well as SUID prevention initiatives, we urge pediatricians, forensic pathologists, and other medicolegal specialists who evaluate these data to do so. The medicolegal community could seek to guarantee that thorough protocols are further created so that a gold standard becomes widely recognized and applied in order to enhance practices. The best and most influential DSI and autopsy procedures for elucidating the causes of SUID should be identified. One must take into account the available resources (such as the budget, staffing, epuipment and equipment, and training requirements) while determining feasibility. Future research using the SUID Case Registry data can track the development of better standardized practices as a result.

Acknowledgments

We thank the patient for allowing the case description.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Gahr B, et al. "Examination of live victims of violent crimes at the Institutes of Legal Medicine of Hanover, Cologne and Leipzig." Archiv fur Kriminologie 216.1-2 (2005): 7-14. [Google Scholar]
2. Pollak S. "Clinical forensic medicine and its main fields of activity from the foundation of the German Society of Legal Medicine until today." Forensic science international 144.2-3 (2004): 269-283.

   [Google Scholar] [Cross ref]

3. Schmidt U. "Sharp force injuries in “clinical” forensic medicine." Forensic science international 195.1-3 (2010): 1-5.

   [Google Scholar] [Cross ref]

4. Pollak S., and  Harpe R. "Defined contusion marks caused by the knife handle." Archiv fur Kriminologie 190.1-2 (1992): 1-8.

   [Google Scholar]

5. Kernbach G. et al "Extragenitale verletzungen bei vergewaltigung." Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 44.10 (1984): 643-650.

   [Google Scholar] [Cross ref]

6. Kernbach, G., K. Püschel, and B. Brinkmann. "Extragenital injuries in rape." Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 44.10 (1984): 643-650. [Google Scholar] [Cross ref]
7.  Brogdon B. "The scope of forensic radiology." Clinics in laboratory medicine 18.2 (1998): 203-240.

   [Google Scholar] [Cross ref]

8. Bolliger S, et al. "Virtual autopsy using imaging: bridging radiologic and forensic sciences. A review of the Virtopsy and similar projects." European radiology 18.2 (2008): 273-282.

   [Google Scholar] [Cross ref]

9. Levy A, et al. "Virtual autopsy: preliminary experience in high-velocity gunshot wound victims." Radiology 240.2 (2006): 522-528.

   [Google Scholar] [Cross ref]

10. Poulsen K, and Simonsen J. "Computed tomography as routine in connection with medico-legal autopsies." Forensic science international 171.2-3 (2007): 190-197.

    [Google Scholar] [Cross ref]

11. Ljung P, et al. "Full body virtual autopsies using a state-of-the-art volume rendering pipeline." IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 12.5 (2006): 869-876.

    [Google Scholar] [Cross ref]

12. Thali M, et al. "3D surface and body documentation in forensic medicine: 3-D/CAD Photogrammetry merged with 3D radiological scanning." Journal of forensic sciences 48.6 (2003): 1356-1365.

    [Google Scholar] [Cross ref]