The investigation into the death of Domenico Caliendo has centered on a new witness statement from anesthetist Carmela Scarpati, heard as part of the judicial inquiry into the child's death.
According to reporting on her testimony, Scarpati told prosecutors that until at least mid-January 2026 the boy did not show multiorgan failure that would have made a further operation impossible.
Her reported assessment concerns the possibility of a new intervention with the Berlin Heart, a durable cardiac support device, rather than continued support with Ecmo.
What the anesthetist reported
Scarpati was heard in the inquiry into Domenico's death.
The key point attributed to her is clinical stability during a defined window: until at least mid-January 2026, Domenico's condition remained compatible, in her assessment, with a possible second procedure.
Reporting on the testimony adds detail to that window. Until mid-January, his lungs were ventilating well and no neurological, hepatic, renal or infectious complications had been detected.
That testimony describes a clinical possibility. It does not by itself establish that the Berlin Heart would have ensured survival.
Why the Berlin Heart matters in this case
One reader-useful distinction in the case is between the two forms of support discussed: Ecmo and the Berlin Heart.
The Berlin Heart is described in the acquired reporting as a durable cardiac assistance device. Court-appointed experts cited in the coverage considered it potentially useful for preserving conditions compatible with a later retransplant for a longer period.
That distinction is central to the dispute: whether continued Ecmo support or a move to the Berlin Heart offered a better bridge toward a possible retransplant. The full decision-making process that led to the choice of Ecmo instead of the Berlin Heart is not clarified in the sources acquired.
What the court-appointed assessment found
A second element that helps readers follow the case is the separate technical assessment ordered in the proceedings.
Consultants appointed by the judge for preliminary investigations considered the Berlin Heart potentially capable of maintaining conditions compatible with retransplant for longer, according to the reporting.
The same reported assessment identified problems in the handling of the donor heart and in the use of dry ice at Bolzano.
The same reconstruction did not direct decisive criticism at the Monaldi surgeons for the performance of the transplant itself, distinguishing that phase from later decisions.
What remains unresolved
The death of Domenico remains subject to a judicial investigation and an incidente probatorio. Individual responsibilities have not been definitively established.
Earlier reporting noted that the family's legal position argued that the transplant could have been postponed and that Domenico was not moribund, while the prosecutor's office ordered an incidente probatorio.
For readers, two cautions from the available material matter. The experts' conclusions and the parties' reconstructions can be challenged during the proceedings. No final judicial decision or established criminal liability has been reported.
The open questions, on the present record, are clinical and procedural: whether the mid-January window described by Scarpati could have supported a Berlin Heart pathway, how the Bolzano handling affected the donor organ, and why Ecmo rather than the Berlin Heart was chosen.
