Post-mortem tissue analysis in the case of death by anaphylactic reaction

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

DrMetal

To shred or not shred?
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
3,325
Reaction score
2,966
Suppose a patient dies of an anaphylactic reaction, to an unknown substance, and there's no clear history that points to a specific cause (a particular allergen, food, drink, etc).

Is there a way to determine, via post-mortem analysis of the body and/or tissue, what substance triggered that anaphylactic reaction? I doubt you'd be able to ascertain much via gross anatomical features during autopsy, but can you do any post-mortem tissue analysis/histology, that might reveal an allergic reaction to common substances (latex, other plastics, metals, etc etc)??? [this is in the setting of negative serum/serology studies done, while the patient was alive.]
 
Far as I know, while we can diagnose anaphylaxis post-mortem (between autopsy findings and testing for tryptase), I've not heard of a forensic autopsy being able to determine what triggered said reaction.
 
I guess you could test for IgE antibodies in the blood for certain antigens...
but you'd want to have evidence that the person was recently exposed to that antigen...
 
I guess you could test for IgE antibodies in the blood for certain antigens...
but you'd want to have evidence that the person was recently exposed to that antigen...

While that is technically accurate, there are two considerations. 1) No office is going to the expense to do this in real life. Just not going to happen. 2) The mere presence of a specific IgE antibody, even at an elevated level, does not prove that was the antigen responsible for the fatal anaphylactic reaction.

The more interesting discussion for FPs with anaphylaxis deaths is manner determination. The cases aren't common enough to have a uniform response throughout the North American FP community. I generally believe they are accidental deaths, but there are those that argue for natural manner certification.
 
While that is technically accurate, there are two considerations. 1) No office is going to the expense to do this in real life. Just not going to happen. 2) The mere presence of a specific IgE antibody, even at an elevated level, does not prove that was the antigen responsible for the fatal anaphylactic reaction.

The more interesting discussion for FPs with anaphylaxis deaths is manner determination. The cases aren't common enough to have a uniform response throughout the North American FP community. I generally believe they are accidental deaths, but there are those that argue for natural manner certification.

Interesting. In my time as an M.E. ( state-wide system, USA 20+ years ago) I, and I believe most of my peers, would call it natural. I would kind of lump it in with folks who have horrible genetic lipid syndromes. However, it does become more nuanced. i.e.---Someone with a KNOWN iodine/latex/etc allergy who tanks after a procedure would certainly fall into the acccident category (in my opinion). Someone who stumbles into a nest of ground bees and suffers 100's of stings ( atopic or not ) would clearly be accident (in my opinion ). But, if you eat some peanuts on a plane and anaphalax (and had no known previous hx) i would be inclined to call it natural. this is some of the stuff that makes forensics so interesting. it is not just bullet holes in the head.
 
Interesting. In my time as an M.E. ( state-wide system, USA 20+ years ago) I, and I believe most of my peers, would call it natural. I would kind of lump it in with folks who have horrible genetic lipid syndromes. However, it does become more nuanced. i.e.---Someone with a KNOWN iodine/latex/etc allergy who tanks after a procedure would certainly fall into the acccident category (in my opinion). Someone who stumbles into a nest of ground bees and suffers 100's of stings ( atopic or not ) would clearly be accident (in my opinion ). But, if you eat some peanuts on a plane and anaphalax (and had no known previous hx) i would be inclined to call it natural. this is some of the stuff that makes forensics so interesting. it is not just bullet holes in the head.

Yeah, I've heard those arguments and certainly see their validity. I also know some FPs who have differing MoD opinions for anaphylactic deaths based on the inciting agent, ie bee sting (natural) vs CT contrast media (accident). I agree it's all quite nuanced. To get back to the original point of this thread, history in these cases is quite important, but if there's no history then it's a tough diagnosis to make, and I personally would ask my lab to spend the money to send out for tryptase level. In my career thus far I've not personally had an anaphylaxis case, so when I do I'll have to consider everything and make a call, likely in consult with the other FPs in my office because I do strongly believe in intra-office consistency (ie, a case MoD shouldn't depend on who picks up your file that morning).
 
Yeah, I've read a few things and thought about IgE testing a few times, and apparently it can be successful with postmortem specimens -- including antigen-specific IgE testing. I don't know what the real-world cost would be, but if you don't even have a potential antigen then you'd have to do a panel and simply hope to get a positive somewhere. I'm not sure what the false pos/neg rates are, either. But total IgE and even tryptase are reportedly not particularly specific, especially as the postmortem interval prior to obtaining a sample increases, and there may be some stability issues in storage.

I've always been a little dismayed at how many things are state/local/office/personal training specific when it comes to either accepting jurisdiction or assigning manner of death on certain cases, but many such differences are so ingrained as to be essentially impossible to nationally standardize -- at least not in a single generation of forensic pathologists. There are very valid arguments posed on each side of things like this, but generally as long as an office is consistent over time the different approaches don't seem to pose significant problems (other than some offices taking jurisdiction over significant numbers of certain health care related deaths they deem "accidents" while other offices deem them natural by way of complication of therapy for a natural disease process...blame the helper or don't, I suppose). Currently I take the view that 1 bee sting wouldn't kill an otherwise healthy individual but for an internal "natural" allergic reaction, while 100's of stings might kill as an external factor. Others may argue that if a homicide by heart attack when someone threatens with a gun is still a homicide in a susceptible person (e.g., AS&HCVD), even though showing off a gun doesn't typically kill normally healthy people, then a single bee sting is similarly comparable to 100's as an external factor in the death. Then there is the asthmatic who has yet another attack after..running? a bit of a cold? high pollen/mold day? stepped into an old cabin with lots of dust?...and dies of asthma, which we generally assume has some sort of trigger perhaps common to any environment, but still technically "external". I tend to think that if something is an accepted part of daily living -- common dust/pollen, perhaps a single ant bite or bee sting, mosquito bite, etc., then complications related to it is probably natural. But I do like to hear people's reasons.

There is reason, I think, in the different approaches. One just needs to be able to explain theirs in hopefully a consistent fashion.
 
For the OP, there can be a number of causes of anaphylaxis/angioedema, and unfortunately if chemicals, bites, drugs (ACE inhibitors being classic), etc., even so-called hereditary susceptibilities which evidently don't respond to typical allergic-type anaphylaxis treatment, haven't turned up by history and circumstances then your options may be pretty limited especially in the face of negative premortem testing and likely budgetary constraints.
 
Top