Search

Background The surge of critically ill patients due to the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) overwhelmed critical care capacity in areas of northern Italy. Anesthesia machines have been used as alternatives to traditional ICU mechanical ventilators. However, the outcomes for patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure cared for with Anesthesia Machines is currently unknow. We hypothesized that COVID-19 patients receiving care with Anesthesia Machines would have worse outcomes compared to standard practice. Methods We designed a retrospective study of patients admitted with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis at a large tertiary urban hospital in northern Italy. Two care units were included: a 27-bed standard ICU and a 15-bed temporary unit emergently opened in an operating room setting. Intubated patients assigned to Anesthesia Machines (AM group) were compared to a control cohort treated with standard mechanical ventilators (ICU-VENT group). Outcomes were assessed at 60-day follow-up. A multivariable Cox regression analysis of risk factors between survivors and non-survivors was conducted to determine the adjusted risk of death for patients assigned to AM group. Results Complete daily data from 89 mechanically ventilated patients consecutively admitted to the two units were analyzed. Seventeen patients were included in the AM group, whereas 72 were in the ICU-VENT group. Disease severity and intensity of treatment were comparable between the two groups. The 60-day mortality was significantly higher in the AM group compared to the ICU-vent group (12/17 vs. 27/72, 70.6% vs. 37.5%, respectively, p = 0.016). Allocation to AM group was associated with a significantly increased risk of death after adjusting for covariates (HR 4.05, 95% CI: 1.75–9.33, p = 0.001). Several incidents and complications were reported with Anesthesia Machine care, raising safety concerns. Conclusions Our results support the hypothesis that care associated with the use of Anesthesia Machines is inadequate to provide long-term critical care to patients with COVID-19. Added safety risks must be considered if no other option is available to treat severely ill patients during the ongoing pandemic. Clinical trial number Not applicable.

Background: We report the peculiar case of a patient with a retained large epidural catheter fragment, incidentally found 12 years after its placement. Our primary aim is to emphasize how the breakage and retention of even exceptionally large portions of this device can go undetected. The patient can be completely asymptomatic and, with no clue that such a foreign body exists, the presentation of its potential complications can be subtle and misleading. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of the incidental discovery of such a large fragment so many years after its placement. No consensus exists about how to handle this complication, therefore our report adds to the amount of available evidence. Case Presentation: A 53-year-old caucasian female with a history of diverticulitis requiring multiple hospitalizations underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy. The early postoperative period was complicated by peritonitis, demanding an urgent "second-look" exploratory laparoscopy. Nine days post-operatively, a filiform metallic object in the upper-quadrant was noted on x-ray. No epidural had been placed for either one of her recent surgeries. Given the patient's history, the object was initially thought to be a retained surgical sponge. Previous studies, however, showed that the same image was already present preoperatively. Upon further questioning, the patient reported an epidural being placed twelve years before, at the time of her pregnancy. No mention of breakage had been made to her at that time, nor a retained foreign body was ever reported afterwards, despite her many imaging exams. She also never experienced any symptoms. A 15 cm fragment of a wire-reinforced catheter was surgically retrieved under local anesthesia and fluoroscopic guidance. Conclusion: Breakage of the epidural catheter with fragment retention is a known complication of this device, possibly leading to devastating sequelae. The fragment can go undetected for years. In this case our finding was incidental and the patient was asymptomatic. However, in the event a neurologic complication arose, the identification of the unknowingly retained epidural as the causative agent could have been difficult and delayed, with potential harm to the patient.