Search

Abstract 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.

Abstract Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patients with cardiac injury have an increased risk of mortality. It remains to be determined the mechanism of cardiac injury and the identification of specific conditions that affect the heart during COVID‐19. We present the case of a 76‐year‐old woman with COVID‐19 pneumonia that developed a takotsubo syndrome (TTS). Although the patient presented normal left ventricular ejection fraction and normal levels of troponin on admission, after 16 days in intensive care unit due to respiratory distress, she suddenly developed cardiogenic shock. Shock occurred few hours after a spontaneous breathing trial through her tracheostomy. Bed‐side echocardiographic revealed apical ballooning promptly supporting the diagnosis of TTS. She was successfully treated with deep sedation and low dosage of epinephrine. The relevance of this case is that TTS can occur in the late phase of COVID‐19. Awareness of late TTS and bed‐side echocardiographic evaluation can lead to prompt identification and treatment.

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) improves gas exchange and allows lung rest, thus minimizing ventilation-induced lung injury. In the last forty years, a major technological and clinical improvement allowed to dramatically improve the outcome of patients treated with V-V ECMO. However, many aspects of the care of patients on V-V ECMO remain debated. In this review, we will focus on main issues and controversies on caring of ARDS patients on V-V ECMO support. Particularly, the indications to V-V ECMO and the feasibility of a less invasive extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal will be discussed. Moreover, the controversies on management of mechanical ventilation, prone position and sedation will be explored. In conclusion, we will discuss evidences on transfusions and management of anticoagulation, also focusing on patients who undergo simultaneous treatment with ECMO and renal replacement therapy. This review aims to discuss all these clinical aspects with an eye on future directions and perspectives.