Objective To characterize patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in a large New York City medical center and describe their clinical course across the emergency department, hospital wards, and intensive care units. Design Retrospective manual medical record review. Setting NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, a quaternary care academic medical center in New York City. Participants The first 1000 consecutive patients with a positive result on the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) who presented to the emergency department or were admitted to hospital between 1 March and 5 April 2020. Patient data were manually abstracted from electronic medical records. Main outcome measures Characterization of patients, including demographics, presenting symptoms, comorbidities on presentation, hospital course, time to intubation, complications, mortality, and disposition. Results Of the first 1000 patients, 150 presented to the emergency department, 614 were admitted to hospital (not intensive care units), and 236 were admitted or transferred to intensive care units. The most common presenting symptoms were cough (732/1000), fever (728/1000), and dyspnea (631/1000). Patients in hospital, particularly those treated in intensive care units, often had baseline comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. Patients admitted to intensive care units were older, predominantly male (158/236, 66.9%), and had long lengths of stay (median 23 days, interquartile range 12-32 days); 78.0% (184/236) developed acute kidney injury and 35.2% (83/236) needed dialysis. Only 4.4% (6/136) of patients who required mechanical ventilation were first intubated more than 14 days after symptom onset. Time to intubation from symptom onset had a bimodal distribution, with modes at three to four days, and at nine days. As of 30 April, 90 patients remained in hospital and 211 had died in hospital. Conclusions Patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 at this medical center faced major morbidity and mortality, with high rates of acute kidney injury and inpatient dialysis, prolonged intubations, and a bimodal distribution of time to intubation from symptom onset.

BACKGROUND In a randomized trial comparing mitral-valve repair with mitral-valve replacement in patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation, we found no significant difference in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), survival, or adverse events at 1 year after surgery. However, patients in the repair group had significantly more recurrences of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation. We now report the 2-year out-comes of this trial. METHODS We randomly assigned 251 patients to mitral-valve repair or replacement. Patients were followed for 2 years, and clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were assessed. RESULTS Among surviving patients, the mean (±SD) 2-year LVESVI was 52.6±27.7 ml per square meter of body-surface area with mitral-valve repair and 60.6±39.0 ml per square meter with mitral-valve replacement (mean changes from baseline, −9.0 ml per square meter and −6.5 ml per square meter, respectively). Two-year mortality was 19.0% in the repair group and 23.2% in the replacement group (hazard ratio in the repair group, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 1.35; P = 0.39). The rank-based assessment of LVESVI at 2 years (incorporating deaths) showed no significant between-group difference (z score = −1.32, P = 0.19). The rate of recurrence of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation over 2 years was higher in the repair group than in the replacement group (58.8% vs. 3.8%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of serious adverse events and overall readmissions, but patients in the repair group had more serious adverse events related to heart failure (P = 0.05) and cardiovascular readmissions (P = 0.01). On the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire, there was a trend toward greater improvement in the replacement group (P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS In patients undergoing mitral-valve repair or replacement for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation, we observed no significant between-group difference in left ventricular reverse remodeling or survival at 2 years. Mitral regurgitation recurred more frequently in the repair group, resulting in more heart-failure–related adverse events and cardiovascular admissions.

Background Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with a substantial risk of death. Practice guidelines recommend surgery for patients with a severe form of this condition but acknowledge that the supporting evidence for repair or replacement is limited. Methods We randomly assigned 251 patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation to undergo either mitral-valve repair or chordal-sparing replacement in order to evaluate efficacy and safety. The primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) at 12 months, as assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized below the lowest LVESVI rank. Results At 12 months, the mean LVESVI among surviving patients was 54.6±25.0 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the repair group and 60.7±31.5 ml per square meter in the replacement group (mean change from baseline, −6.6 and −6.8 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 14.3% in the repair group and 17.6% in the replacement group (hazard ratio with repair, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.42 to 1.47; P = 0.45 by the log-rank test). There was no significant between-group difference in LVESVI after adjustment for death (z score, 1.33; P = 0.18). The rate of moderate or severe recurrence of mitral regurgitation at 12 months was higher in the repair group than in the replacement group (32.6% vs. 2.3%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of a composite of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, in functional status, or in quality of life at 12 months. Conclusions We observed no significant difference in left ventricular reverse remodeling or survival at 12 months between patients who underwent mitral-valve repair and those who underwent mitral-valve replacement. Replacement provided a more durable correction of mitral regurgitation, but there was no significant between-group difference in clinical outcomes. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00807040.)