Evidence Hub

Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study

M. Cummings, M. Baldwin, D. Abrams, S. Jacobson, B. J. Meyer, E. Balough, J. Aaron, J. Claassen et al.

medRxiv, 2020

30,000 participants · 1,185 citations

Abstract

Background: Nearly 30,000 patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) have been hospitalized in New York City as of April 14th, 2020. Data on the epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in this setting are needed. Methods: We prospectively collected clinical, biomarker, and treatment data on critically ill adults with laboratory-confirmed-COVID-19 admitted to two hospitals in northern Manhattan between March 2nd and April 1st, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included frequency and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, frequency of vasopressor use and renal-replacement-therapy, and time to clinical deterioration following hospital admission. The relationship between clinical risk factors, biomarkers, and in-hospital mortality was modeled using Cox-proportional-hazards regression. Each patient had at least 14 days of observation. Results: Of 1,150 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 during the study period, 257 (22%) were critically ill. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range [IQR] 51-72); 170 (66%) were male. Two-hundred twelve (82%) had at least one chronic illness, the most common of which were hypertension (63%; 162/257) and diabetes mellitus (36%; 92/257). One-hundred-thirty-eight patients (54%) were obese, and 13 (5%) were healthcare workers. As of April 14th, 2020, in-hospital mortality was 33% (86/257); 47% (122/257) of patients remained hospitalized.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 30,000 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free