Dying "from" or "with" COVID-19 during the Pandemic: Medico-Legal Issues According to a Population Perspective.

There is still a lack of knowledge concerning the pathophysiology of death among COVID-19-deceased patients, and the question of whether a patient has died with or due to COVID-19 is still very much debated. In Italy, all deaths of patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 are defined as COVID-19-related, without considering pre-existing diseases that may either contribute to or even cause death. Our study included nine subjects from two different nursing homes (Cases 1-4, Group A; Cases 5-9, Group B). The latter included patients who presumably died from CO poisoning due to a heating system malfunction. All subjects tested positive for COVID-19 both ante- and post-mortem and were examined using post-mortem computed tomography prior to autopsy. COVID-19 was determined to be a contributing cause in the deaths of four out of nine subjects (death due to COVID-19; i.e., pneumonia and sudden cardiac death). In the other five cases, for which CO poisoning was identified as the cause of death, the infection presumably had no role in exitus (death with COVID-19). In our attempt to classify our patients as dying with or due to COVID-19, we found the use of complete assessments (both histological analyses and computed tomography examination) fundamental.

Use of post-mortem chest computed tomography in Covid-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: COVID-19 is an extremely challenging disease, both from a clinical and forensic point of view, and performing autopsies of COVID-19 deceased requires adequately equipped sectorial rooms and exposes health professionals to the risk of contagion. Among one of the categories that are most affected by SARS-Cov-2 infection are the elderly residents. Despite the need for prompt diagnoses, which are essential to implement all isolation measures necessary to contain the infection spread, deceased subjects in long-term care facilities are still are often diagnosed post-mortem. In this context, our study focuses on the use of post-mortem computed tomography for the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, in conjunction with post-mortem swabs. The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of post-mortem whole CT-scanning in identifying COVID-19 pneumonia as a cause of death, by comparing chest CT-findings of confirmed COVID-19 fatalities to control cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 24 deceased subjects: 13 subjects coming from long-term care facility and 11 subjects died at home. Whole body CT scans were performed within 48 h from death in all subjects to evaluate the presence and distribution of pulmonary abnormalities typical of COVID-19-pneumonia, including: ground-glass opacities (GGO), consolidation, and pleural effusion to confirm the post-mortem diagnosis. RESULTS: Whole-body CT scans was feasible and allowed a complete diagnosis in all subjects. In 9 (69%) of the 13 cases from long-term care facility the cause of death was severe COVID 19 pneumonia, while GGO were present in 100% of the study population. CONCLUSION: In the context of rapidly escalating COVID-19 outbreaks, given that laboratory tests for the novel coronavirus is time-consuming and can be falsely negative, the post-mortem CT can be considered as a reliable and safe modality to confirm COVID-19 pneumonia. This is especially true for specific postmortem chest CT-findings that are rather characteristic of COVID-19 fatalities.

Longitudinal study of interventional radiology activity in a large metropolitan Italian tertiary care hospital: how the COVID-19 pandemic emergency has changed our activity.

OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively analyze interventional radiology (IR) activity changes in the COVID-19 era and to describe how to safely and effectively reorganize IR activity. METHODS: All IR procedures performed between January 30 and April 8, 2020 (COVID-era group) and the same 2019 period (non-COVID-era group) were retrospectively included and compared. A sub-analysis for the lockdown period (LDP: 11 March-8 April) was also conducted. Demographic, hospitalization, clinical, and procedural data were obtained for both groups and statistically compared with univariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1496 procedures (non-COVID era, 825; COVID era, 671) performed in 1226 patients (64.9 ± 15.1 years, 618 women) were included. The number of procedures decreased by 18.6% between 2019 and 2020 (825 vs 671, p < .001), with a reduction by 48.2% in LDP (188 vs 363, p < .0001). In the LDP COVID era, bedside procedures were preferred (p = .013), with an increase in procedures from the intensive care unit compared with the emergency department and outpatients (p = .048), and an increased activity for oncological patients (p = .003). No incidents of cross-infection of non-infected from infected patients and no evidence of COVID-19 infection of healthcare workers in the IR service was registered. CONCLUSIONS: Coronavirus disease outbreak changed the interventional radiology activity with an overall reduction in the number of procedures. However, this study confirms that interventional radiology continuum of care can be safely performed also during the pandemic, following defined measures and protocols, taking care of all patients. KEY POINTS: • Coronavirus disease pandemic determined a reduction of interventional radiology activity as compared to the same period of the previous year. • Interventional radiology procedures for life-threatening conditions and non-deferrable oncologic treatments were prioritized as opposed to elective procedures. • Strict adoption of safe procedures allowed us to have until now no incidents of cross-infection of non-infected from infected patients and no evidence of COVID-19 infection of HCWs in the IR service.