Post mortem pathological findings in COVID-19 cases: A Systematic Review

Abstract Background: The current COVID-19 pandemic is considered one of the most serious public health crisis over the last few decades. Although the disease can result in diverse, multiorgan pathology, there have been very few studies addressing the postmortem pathological findings of the cases. Active autopsy amid this pandemic could be an essential tool for diagnosis, surveillance, and research. Objective: To provide a total picture of the SARS-CoV-2 histopathological features of different body organs in postmortem autopsies through a systematic search of the published literature. Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google scholar, Medrxiv & Biorxiv) was carried out from December 2019 to August, 15th 2020, for journal articles of different study designs reporting postmortem pathological findings in COVID-19 cases. PRISMA guidelines were used for reporting the review. Results: A total of 50 articles reporting 430 cases were included in our analysis. Postmortem pathological findings were reported for different body organs, pulmonary system (42 articles), cardiovascular system ( 23 articles), hepatobiliary system (22 articles), kidney (16 articles), spleen, and lymph nodes (12 articles), and central nervous system (7 articles). In lung samples, diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) was the most commonly reported findings in 239 cases (84.4%). Myocardial hypertrophy (87 cases by 51.2%), arteriosclerosis (121 cases by 62%), and steatosis ( 118 cases by 59.3%) were the most commonly reported pathological findings in the heart, kidney, and hepatobiliary system respectively. Conclusion: Autopsy examination as an investigation tool could help in a better understanding of SARS-CoV-2 pathophysiology, diagnosis, management, and subsequently improving patient care. Keywords: SARS-CoV-2, Histopathology, Autopsy, forensic pathology, COVID-19


Introduction
The novel coronavirus disease  pandemic is considered one of the most challenging public health crisis in the past century. It first emerged in Wuhan, China, in late December 2019 and believed to be caused by infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. (1) The first cases of COVID-19 in China were believed to be of zoonotic origin, but the global spread of the disease was mainly travel-related.
The disease has spread from China to affect nearly 200 countries all over the world. (2) The virus is easily transmissible via droplets and fomites or when bodily fluids of the infected individual come in contact with another person's face, mouth, eyes, or nose. (3) Regarding pathogenesis, Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which is highly expressed on the respiratory tract, acts as a receptor to SARS-CoV-2. The virus invades the human cells causing massive destruction and inflammation of different organs and subsequently affecting the vascular supply and even progression to fibrosis. (4) The main clinical manifestations include fever, cough, fatigue, and shortness of breath. Other less common symptoms include headache, sore throat, and rhinorrhea. Along with that, one-fifth of patients (20%) presented with severe symptoms such as respiratory failure, multiorgan failure, septic shock, all of which necessitate intensive care. (5) Although COVID-19 is mainly affecting the respiratory system, there have been reported cases of cardiogenic and renal involvement in

Methods
This study followed the recommendations established by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. (Appendix-1) (16)

Sources of information
A predetermined protocol was used to perform this systematic review using the following databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and MedRxiv. The search included articles published between December 2019 and August 15th, 2020. The reference lists of relevant studies were hand-searched to identify cited articles that were not captured by electronic search.

Selection criteria
Articles were included if they met the following eligibility criteria: (1) addressed pathological reports of COVID-19 autopsies or postmortem cases, (2) involved human subjects (at least one case), (3) all study designs were involved (case report, case series, cross-sectional, case-control, randomized and non-randomized studies), (4) no language restrictions were applied.

Study selection and search terms
The search terms and keywords across the different databases have been provided in (Appendix-2). The selection was broad to include as many studies as possible. In the initial phase, two independent reviewers (H.H. & A.B.) screened the titles and abstracts of the articles using the Rayyan QCRI ® website. As a result, all non-relevant articles were excluded. In the second phase, the full-texts of the remaining articles were independently reviewed for the final selection of eligible studies. Any disagreement between the two reviewers was resolved by a third reviewer (T.B.).

Quality assessment and risk of bias
To assess the internal validity of the included studies, we used different tools according to study design. For cross-sectional studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint (modified for cross-sectional studies) was used after removing items that relate to comparability and adjustment. The tool contains three major subsections (Selection, Comparability, and Outcome). A score for quality, modified from the tool, was used to assess the appropriateness of study design, recruitment strategy, sample representativeness, reliability of the outcome, sample size provided, and appropriate statistical analyses. At least two reviewers (H.H., A.B., T.B.) independently ranked these domains. When the independent evaluations of the ranks differed between the two reviewers, they discussed disagreements to reach for mutual decision. For case reports and case series, a version of (NOS) checklist was adapted by Murad et al. to assess the methodological quality of case reports and case series. (17) By this approach, we assessed the quality of each study with regard to four domains: selection, ascertainment; causality; and reporting. From the results of each checklist, if 25% or less of the criteria were addressed, the article was scored as poor; if 26% to 50% of the criteria were addressed, the article was scored as fair; if 51% to 75% of criteria were addressed, the article was scored as good; and if 76% to 100% of the criteria were addressed, the article was scored as excellent.

Data extraction
A single author (A.B.) extracted the variables from each included study. The data from the final list of included articles onto an online Google sheet. Several study characteristics were extracted, including;

| Characteristics of included studies
A total number of 50 studies were included in our systematic review, with overall 430 cases.  (Table 1)

| Quality of evidence
We used the GRADE framework for judging the precision and confidence estimate in the review. Generally speaking, the evidence derived from observational studies is classified as of low quality. (18) Regarding the risk of bias assessment in the review, 4 articles scored between 26 -50 %, which is considered "Fair" (19)(20)(21)(22) 26 articles scored between 51-75 %, which is . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted October 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.11.20210849 doi: medRxiv preprint considered as "Good" (13, , and 20 articles scored more than 76 % which is considered as "Excellent." (48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58)(59)(60)(61)(62)(63)(64)(65)(66)(67) A high degree of inconsistency was noticed in the review as the study populations were somehow heterogeneous in the main characteristics like age, gender, and comorbidities. Although there were no language restrictions applied in the review, publication bias may appear due to the fact that the number of the published literature was small, especially at the beginning of the pandemic. Moreover, a very small number of countries were reporting autopsy findings. Regarding the indirectness, the majority of included studies used the same tool in diagnosing COVID-19, which is (RT-PCR), the same tool in identifying histopathological findings, and the studied population varied between studies. Hence, the quality of evidence was rated as "Moderate." (Appendix-4)

| Clinical findings of the cases
The review described a total of 430 patients with COVID-19. Among the included patients, gender was reported in 349 patients as follows; 297 males (85.1%) and 133 (14.9 %) female.
Among the no patients for whom age was reported, the median age was (range: 11 to 94 years).

| Laboratory investigations:
In all included studies, RT-PCR of Nasopharyngeal swab was the main method to confirm the positivity of COVID-19 in all patients. RT-PCR for COVID-19 of the Endotracheal Aspirate was reported in one patient. (66)

| Gall bladder histopathologic findings:
In the one article that described gall bladder postmortem pathology, inflammatory infiltration and endoluminal obliteration of vessels with wall breakthrough, hemorrhagic infarction, and nerve hypertrophy were reported in one case report. (42) . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted October 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.11.20210849 doi: medRxiv preprint

| Pharynx histopathological findings:
One study described pharyngeal postmortem pathology. The study included 8 cases, 7 of which reported mild to pronounced lymphocytic pharyngitis. (50) this 'new' disease with a poor understanding of its pathological mechanism, especially at the beginning of the pandemic. (68) Moreover, in some countries, the number of safe autopsy rooms is very low, which, according to the WHO & CDC guidelines, is considered one of the barriers that contributed to the scarce evidence. (69)(70)(71)

Postmortem pulmonary findings:
Regarding the postmortem pulmonary pathology, our review showed that different histopathological findings had been identified among COVID-19 cases. Diffuse alveolar injury, hyaline membrane formation, pneumocyte hyperplasia, microthrombi, fibrin . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted October 14, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted October 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.11.20210849 doi: medRxiv preprint

Other Organ findings
Regarding the postmortem cardiac pathology, there were 23 studies with a total number of 87 cases addressing the histopathological findings in the heart. Myocardial hypertrophy, small coronary vessels, cardiac fibrosis, cardiac cell infiltrate, and cardiac amyloidosis are the main findings. Although viral myocarditis has been reported in patients with SARS-Cov-2 virus, lymphocyte infiltrate was found only in one case reported by Buja et al. during Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. (28,78) These pathological findings could be attributed to the comorbidities of affected patients, as most of them suffered from hypertension, diabetes, or coronary heart disease. On the other hand, myocardial edema and fibrosis have been recorded in deceased patients with SARS and MERS-CoV. (72,79,80) As the studies in this review reported that nephrosclerosis, arteriosclerosis, glomerulosclerosis, and acute tubular injury were the most commonly reported findings in the postmortem renal biopsies, other pathological findings like hyaline arteriolosclerosis, patchy interstitial inflammation, and granular casts have been reported in other coronavirus cases like SARS & MERS-CoV. (72,81,82) Regarding the pathological findings in the hepatobiliary system, our review found that hepatic fibrosis, steatosis, cirrhosis, and interstitial inflammations were the main findings. In contrast, other pathological findings were reported in patients with SARS-CoV-1 infection like lymphocytic infiltrate and balloon degeneration. (83) As for histopathological findings of the spleen and lymph nodes, lymphocyte depletion and hemophagocytosis of the Spleen and lymph nodes were the main findings. Our results were consistent with similar pathological findings from other coronavirus infections. (79,84) Although the SARS-CoV-2 virus hasn't been detected in the spinal fluid, our study suggests that COVID-19 had been capable of infecting the central nervous system via olfactory and trigeminal nerves causing cerebral hemorrhage, focal spongiosis, and vascular congestion. (85) On the contrary, and in the case of SARS infection, RT-PCR has detected the genomic . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted October 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.11.20210849 doi: medRxiv preprint sequences of the virus in cerebral spinal fluid and brain tissue specimens and was responsible for brain edema and neuronal degeneration. (81,86)

Limitations of the study
As a part of any research, we faced many limitations while conduction the review. First, in this study, we focused on the available studies in certain databases in the first months of the pandemic, so government reports and other relevant grey literature weren't included in this review, so publication bias is a possibility. Second, due to the scarcity of the evidence, we decided to include pre-prints. These publications have not yet undergone peer review.
However, since we assessed the risk of bias of these studies, we feel that the benefits of including the data from these pre-prints in our review outweigh the risks. Third, we've included only 50 articles, but we can't ignore the fact that the number of publications is increasing daily, and we might have missed the recently published ones. Fourth, missing information in some of the published articles has been a challenge. Many articles didn't report the basic characteristics of the cases like gender, comorbidities, and clinical course of the disease. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

Conclusion
The copyright holder for this this version posted October 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.11.20210849 doi: medRxiv preprint cases. LID -S1590-8658 (20) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted October 14, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted October 14, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.11.20210849 doi: medRxiv preprint     Table  Tables.docx