SuPAR, biomarkers of inflammation, and severe outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19: The International Study of Inflammation in COVID-19.

Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a hyperinflammatory syndrome. The biomarkers of inflammation best suited to triage patients with COVID-19 are unknown. We conducted a prospective multicenter observational study of adult patients hospitalized specifically for COVID-19 from February 1, 2020 to October 19, 2022. Biomarkers measured included soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR), C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, procalcitonin, ferritin, and D-dimer. In-hospital outcomes examined include death and the need for mechanical ventilation. Patients admitted in the United States (US, n = 1962) were used to compute area under the curves (AUCs) and identify biomarker cutoffs. The combined European cohorts (n = 1137) were used to validate the biomarker cutoffs. In the US cohort, 356 patients met the composite outcome of death (n = 197) or need for mechanical ventilation (n = 290). SuPAR was the most important predictor of the composite outcome and had the highest AUC (0.712) followed by CRP (0.642), ferritin (0.619), IL-6 (0.614), D-dimer (0.606), and lastly procalcitonin (0.596). Inclusion of other biomarkers did not improve discrimination. A suPAR cutoff of 4.0 ng/mL demonstrated a sensitivity of 95.4% (95% CI: 92.4%-98.0%) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 92.5% (95% CI: 87.5%-96.9%) for the composite outcome. Patients with suPAR < 4.0 ng/mL comprised 10.6% of the cohort and had a 0.8% probability of the composite outcome. Applying this cutoff to the validation cohort yielded a sensitivity of 93.8% (90.4%-96.7%) and NPV of 95.5% (93.1%-97.8%) for the composite outcome. Among commonly measured biomarkers, suPAR offered stronger discriminatory ability and may be useful in triaging low-risk patients with COVID-19.

Thrombosis, Bleeding, and the Observational Effect of Early Therapeutic Anticoagulation on Survival in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Hypercoagulability may be a key mechanism of death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and examine the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival. DESIGN: In a multicenter cohort study of 3239 critically ill adults with COVID-19, the incidence of VTE and major bleeding within 14 days after intensive care unit (ICU) admission was evaluated. A target trial emulation in which patients were categorized according to receipt or no receipt of therapeutic anticoagulation in the first 2 days of ICU admission was done to examine the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival. A Cox model with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounding was used. SETTING: 67 hospitals in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with COVID-19 admitted to a participating ICU. MEASUREMENTS: Time to death, censored at hospital discharge, or date of last follow-up. RESULTS: Among the 3239 patients included, the median age was 61 years (interquartile range, 53 to 71 years), and 2088 (64.5%) were men. A total of 204 patients (6.3%) developed VTE, and 90 patients (2.8%) developed a major bleeding event. Independent predictors of VTE were male sex and higher D-dimer level on ICU admission. Among the 2809 patients included in the target trial emulation, 384 (11.9%) received early therapeutic anticoagulation. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 27 days, patients who received early therapeutic anticoagulation had a similar risk for death as those who did not (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.35]). LIMITATION: Observational design. CONCLUSION: Among critically ill adults with COVID-19, early therapeutic anticoagulation did not affect survival in the target trial emulation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Patient and provider perspectives of a new prenatal care model introduced in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials document the safety and efficacy of reduced frequency prenatal visit schedules and virtual visits, but real-world data are lacking. Our institution created a prenatal care delivery model incorporating these alternative approaches to continue safely providing prenatal care during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate institutional-level adoption and patient and provider experiences with the coronavirus disease 2019 prenatal care model. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a single-site evaluation of a coronavirus disease 2019 prenatal care model incorporating a reduced frequency visit schedule and virtual visits deployed at a suburban academic institution on March 20, 2020. We used electronic health record data to evaluate institution-level model adoption, defined as changes in overall visit frequency and proportion of virtual visits in the 3 months before and after implementation. To evaluate the patient and provider experience with the coronavirus disease 2019 model, we conducted an online survey of all pregnant patients (>20 weeks' gestation) and providers in May 2020. Of note, 3 domains of care experience were evaluated: (1) access, (2) quality and safety, and (3) satisfaction. Quantitative data were analyzed with basic descriptive statistics. Free-text responses coded by the 3 survey domains elucidated drivers of positive and negative care experiences. RESULTS: After the coronavirus disease 2019 model adoption, average weekly prenatal visit volume fell by 16.1%, from 898 to 761 weekly visits; the average weekly proportion of prenatal visits conducted virtually increased from 10.8% (97 of 898) to 43.3% (330 of 761); and the average visit no-show rate remained stable (preimplementation, 4.3%; postimplementation, 4.2%). Of those eligible, 74.8% of providers (77 of 103) and 15.0% of patients (253 of 1690) participated in the surveys. Patient respondents were largely white (180 of 253; 71.1%) and privately insured (199 of 253; 78.7%), reflecting the study site population. The rates of chronic conditions and pregnancy complications also differed from national prevalence. Provider respondents were predominantly white (44 of 66; 66.7%) and female (50 of 66; 75.8%). Most patients and almost all providers reported that virtual visits improved access to care (patients, 174 of 253 [68.8%]; providers, 74 of 77 [96.1%]). More than half of respondents (patients, 124 of 253 [53.3%]; providers, 41 of 77 [62.1%]) believed that virtual visits were safe. Nearly all believed that home blood pressure cuffs were important for virtual visits (patients, 213 of 231 [92.2%]; providers, 63 of 66 [95.5%]). Most reported satisfaction with the coronavirus disease 2019 model (patients, 196 of 253 [77.5%]; providers, 64 of 77 [83.1%]). In free-text responses, drivers of positive care experiences were similar for patients and providers and included perceived improved access to care through decreased barriers (eg, transportation, childcare), perceived high quality of virtual visits for low-risk patients and increased safety during the pandemic, and improved satisfaction through better patient counseling. Perceived drivers of negative care experience were also similar for patients and providers, but less common. These included concerns that unequal access to virtual visits could deepen existing maternity care inequities, concerns that the lack of home devices (eg, blood pressure cuffs) would affect care quality and safety, and dissatisfaction with poor patient-provider continuity and inadequate expectation setting for the virtual visit experience. CONCLUSION: Reduced visit schedules and virtual visits were rapidly integrated into real-world care, with positive experiences for many patients and providers. Future research is needed to understand the health outcomes and care experience associated with alternative approaches to prenatal care delivery across more diverse patient populations outside of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic to inform broader health policy decisions.

Soluble Urokinase Receptor (SuPAR) in COVID-19-Related AKI.

BACKGROUND: AKI commonly occurs in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Its pathogenesis is poorly understood. The urokinase receptor system is a key regulator of the intersection between inflammation, immunity, and coagulation, and soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) has been identified as an immunologic risk factor for AKI. Whether suPAR is associated with COVID-19-related AKI is unknown. METHODS: In a multinational observational study of adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19, we measured suPAR levels in plasma samples from 352 adult patients that had been collected within 48 hours of admission. We examined the association between suPAR levels and incident in-hospital AKI. RESULTS: Of the 352 patients (57.4% were male, 13.9% were black, and mean age was 61 years), 91 (25.9%) developed AKI during their hospitalization, of whom 25 (27.4%) required dialysis. The median suPAR level was 5.61 ng/ml. AKI incidence rose with increasing suPAR tertiles, from a 6.0% incidence in patients with suPAR <4.60 ng/ml (first tertile) to a 45.8% incidence of AKI in patients with suPAR levels >6.86 ng/ml (third tertile). None of the patients with suPAR <4.60 ng/ml required dialysis during their hospitalization. In multivariable analysis, the highest suPAR tertile was associated with a 9.15-fold increase in the odds of AKI (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 3.64 to 22.93) and a 22.86-fold increase in the odds of requiring dialysis (95% CI, 2.77 to 188.75). The association was independent of inflammatory markers and persisted across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Admission suPAR levels in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 are predictive of in-hospital AKI and the need for dialysis. SuPAR may be a key component of the pathophysiology of AKI in COVID-19.

Cardiovascular Risk Stratification of Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: The CARE-BMT Risk Score.

BACKGROUND: Evidence guiding the pre-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) cardiovascular evaluation is limited. We sought to derive and validate a pre-HSCT score for the cardiovascular risk stratification of HSCT candidates. METHODS AND RESULTS: We leveraged the CARE-BMT (Cardiovascular Registry in Bone Marrow Transplantation) study, a contemporary multicenter observational study of adult patients who underwent autologous or allogeneic HSCT between 2008 and 2019 (N=2435; mean age at transplant of 55 years; 4.9% Black). We identified the subset of variables most predictive of post-HSCT cardiovascular events, defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, atrial fibrillation or flutter, and sustained ventricular tachycardia. We then developed a point-based risk score using the hazard ratios obtained from Cox proportional hazards modeling. The score was externally validated in a separate cohort of 919 HSCT recipients (mean age at transplant 54 years; 20.4% Black). The risk score included age, transplant type, race, coronary artery disease, heart failure, peripheral artery disease, creatinine, triglycerides, and prior anthracycline dose. Risk scores were grouped as low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, with the 5-year cumulative incidence of cardiovascular events being 4.0%, 10.3%, and 22.4%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating curves for predicting cardiovascular events at 100 days, 5 and 10 years post-HSCT were 0.65 (95% CI, 0.59-0.70), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.76), and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.69-0.81), respectively. The model performed equally well in autologous and allogeneic recipients, as well as in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The CARE-BMT risk score is easy to calculate and could help guide referrals of high-risk HSCT recipients to cardiovascular specialists before transplant and guide long-term monitoring.

Barriers to Telemedicine Use: Qualitative Analysis of Provider Perspectives During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Though telemedicine is a promising approach for removing barriers to care and improving access for patients, telemedicine use for many medical specialties has decreased from its peak during the acute COVID-19 public health crisis. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to the maintenance of web-based visits-one key component of telemedicine-is critical for ensuring the continuous availability of this service for patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to describe medical providers' perceived barriers and facilitators to the continued use of web-based visits to inform quality improvement efforts and promote sustainability. METHODS: We performed a qualitative content analysis of free-text responses from a survey of medical providers administered from February 5-14, 2021, at a large, midwestern academic institution, including all providers from medical professions that offered telemedicine (eg, physicians, residents or fellows, nurse practitioners, physicians assistants, or nurses) who completed at least 1 web-based visit from March 20, 2020, to February 14, 2021. The primary outcome was the experience of providing web-based visits, including barriers and facilitators to continued usage of web-based visits. Survey questions included 3 major domains: quality of care, technology, and satisfaction. Responses were coded using qualitative content analysis and further analyzed through a matrix analysis to understand the providers' perspectives and elucidate key barriers and facilitators of web-based visit usage. RESULTS: Of 2692 eligible providers, 1040 (38.6%) completed the survey, of whom 702 were providers from medical professions that offered telemedicine. These providers spanned 7 health care professions and 47 clinical departments. The most common professions represented were physicians (486/702, 46.7%), residents or fellows (85/702, 8.2%), and nurse practitioners (81/702, 7.8%), while the most common clinical departments were internal medicine (69/702, 6.6%), psychiatry (69/702, 6.6%), and physical medicine and rehabilitation (67/702, 6.4%). The following 4 overarching categories of provider experience with web-based visits emerged: quality of care, patient rapport, visit flow, and equity. Though many providers saw web-based visits as a tool for improving care access, quality, and equity, others shared how appropriate selection of web-based visits, support (eg, patient training, home devices, and broadband access), and institutional and nationwide optimization (eg, relaxation of licensing requirements across state borders and reimbursement for phone-only modalities) were needed to sustain web-based visits. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate key barriers to the maintenance of telemedicine services following the acute public health crisis. These findings can help prioritize the most impactful methods of sustaining and expanding telemedicine availability for patients who prefer this method of care delivery.

Cardiovascular Events After Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant: Incidence and Risk Factors.

Background: Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is associated with various cardiovascular (CV) complications. Objectives: We sought to characterize the incidence and risk factors for short-term and long-term CV events in a contemporary cohort of adult HSCT recipients. Methods: We conducted a multicenter observational study of adult patients who underwent autologous or allogeneic HSCT between 2008 and 2019. Data on demographics, clinical characteristics, conditioning regimen, and CV outcomes were collected through chart review. CV outcomes were a composite of CV death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, atrial fibrillation/flutter, stroke, and sustained ventricular tachycardia and were classified as short-term (≤100 days post-HSCT) or long-term (>100 days post-HSCT). Results: In 3,354 patients (mean age 55 years; 40.9% female; 30.1% Black) followed for a median time of 2.3 years (Q1-Q3: 1.0-5.4 years), the 100-day and 5-year cumulative incidences of CV events were 4.1% and 13.9%, respectively. Atrial fibrillation/flutter was the most common short- and long-term CV event, with a 100-day incidence of 2.6% and a 5-year incidence of 6.8% followed by heart failure (1.1% at 100 days and 5.4% at 5 years). Allogeneic recipients had a higher incidence of long-term CV events compared to autologous recipients (5-year incidence 16.4% vs 12.1%; P = 0.002). Baseline CV comorbidities were associated with a higher risk of long-term CV events. Conclusions: The incidence of short-term CV events in HSCT recipients is relatively low. Long-term events were more common among allogeneic recipients and those with pre-existing CV comorbidities.

Relationship Between Preexisting Cardiovascular Disease and Death and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Preexisting cardiovascular disease (CVD) is perceived as a risk factor for poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19. We sought to determine whether CVD is associated with in-hospital death and cardiovascular events in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This study used data from a multicenter cohort of adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units at 68 centers across the United States from March 1 to July 1, 2020. The primary exposure was CVD, defined as preexisting coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, or atrial fibrillation/flutter. Myocardial injury on intensive care unit admission defined as a troponin I or T level above the 99th percentile upper reference limit of normal was a secondary exposure. The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular events (cardiac arrest, new-onset arrhythmias, new-onset heart failure, myocarditis, pericarditis, or stroke) within 14 days. RESULTS: Among 5133 patients (3231 male [62.9%]; mean age 61 years [SD, 15]), 1174 (22.9%) had preexisting CVD. A total of 1178 (34.6%) died, and 920 (17.9%) had a cardiovascular event. After adjusting for age, sex, race, body mass index, history of smoking, and comorbidities, preexisting CVD was associated with a 1.15 (95% CI, 0.98-1.34) higher odds of death. No independent association was observed between preexisting CVD and cardiovascular events. Myocardial injury on intensive care unit admission was associated with higher odds of death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.61-2.31]) and cardiovascular events (adjusted odds ratio, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.47-2.24]), regardless of the presence of CVD. CONCLUSIONS: CVD risk factors, rather than CVD itself, were the major contributors to outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. The occurrence of myocardial injury, regardless of CVD, and its association with outcomes suggests it is likely due to multiorgan injury related to acute inflammation rather than exacerbation of preexisting CVD. REGISTRATION: NCT04343898; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04343898.

Differences in Inflammation, Treatment, and Outcomes Between Black and Non-Black Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Racial disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes have been described. We sought to determine whether differences in inflammatory markers, use of COVID-19 therapies, enrollment in clinical trials, and in-hospital outcomes contribute to racial disparities between Black and non-Black patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: We leveraged a prospective cohort study that enrolled 1325 consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19, of whom 341 (25.7%) were Black. We measured biomarkers of inflammation and collected data on the use COVID-19-directed therapies, enrollment in COVID-19 clinical trials, mortality, need for renal replacement therapy, and need for mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Compared to non-Black patients, Black patients had a higher prevalence of COVID-19 risk factors including obesity, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus and were more likely to require renal replacement therapy (15.8% vs 7.1%, P < .001) and mechanical ventilation (37.2% vs 26.6%, P < .001) during their hospitalization. Mortality was similar between both groups (15.5% for Blacks vs 14.0% for non-Blacks, P = .49). Black patients were less likely to receive corticosteroids (44.9% vs 63.8%, P< .001) or remdesivir (23.8% vs 57.8%, P < .001) and were less likely to be enrolled in COVID-19 clinical trials (15.3% vs 28.2%, P < .001). In adjusted analyses, Black race was associated with lower levels of C-reactive protein and soluble urokinase receptor and higher odds of death, mechanical ventilation, and renal replacement therapy. Differences in outcomes were not significant after adjusting for use of remdesivir and corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: Racial differences in outcomes of patients with COVID-19 may be related to differences in inflammatory response and differential use of therapies.

Inflammation, Hyperglycemia, and Adverse Outcomes in Individuals With Diabetes Mellitus Hospitalized for COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for reasons that are unclear. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We leveraged the International Study of Inflammation in COVID-19 (ISIC), a multicenter observational study of 2,044 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, to characterize the impact of DM on in-hospital outcomes and assess the contribution of inflammation and hyperglycemia to the risk attributed to DM. We measured biomarkers of inflammation collected at hospital admission and collected glucose levels and insulin data throughout hospitalization. The primary outcome was the composite of in-hospital death, need for mechanical ventilation, and need for renal replacement therapy. RESULTS: Among participants (mean age 60 years, 58.2% males), those with DM (n = 686, 33.5%) had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of the primary outcome (37.8% vs. 28.6%) and higher levels of inflammatory biomarkers than those without DM. Among biomarkers, DM was only associated with higher soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels in multivariable analysis. Adjusting for suPAR levels abrogated the association between DM and the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1.23 [95% CI 0.78, 1.37]). In mediation analysis, we estimated the proportion of the effect of DM on the primary outcome mediated by suPAR at 84.2%. Hyperglycemia and higher insulin doses were independent predictors of the primary outcome, with effect sizes unaffected by adjusting for suPAR levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the association between DM and outcomes in COVID-19 is largely mediated by hyperinflammation as assessed by suPAR levels, while the impact of hyperglycemia is independent of inflammation.

Soluble Urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor and Venous Thromboembolism in COVID-19.

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) contributes significantly to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. The urokinase receptor system is involved in the regulation of coagulation. Levels of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) reflect hyperinflammation and are strongly predictive of outcomes in COVID-19. Whether suPAR levels identify patients with COVID-19 at risk for VTE is unclear. Methods and Results We leveraged a multinational observational study of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with suPAR and D-dimer levels measured on admission. In 1960 patients (mean age, 58 years; 57% men; 20% Black race), we assessed the association between suPAR and incident VTE (defined as pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) using logistic regression and Fine-Gray modeling, accounting for the competing risk of death. VTE occurred in 163 (8%) patients and was associated with higher suPAR and D-dimer levels. There was a positive association between suPAR and D-dimer (ß=7.34; P=0.002). Adjusted for clinical covariables, including D-dimer, the odds of VTE were 168% higher comparing the third with first suPAR tertiles (adjusted odds ratio, 2.68 [95% CI, 1.51-4.75]; P<0.001). Findings were consistent when stratified by D-dimer levels and in survival analysis accounting for death as a competing risk. On the basis of predicted probabilities from random forest, a decision tree found the combined D-dimer <1 mg/L and suPAR <11 ng/mL cutoffs, identifying 41% of patients with only 3.6% VTE probability. Conclusions Higher suPAR was associated with incident VTE independently of D-dimer in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Combining suPAR and D-dimer identified patients at low VTE risk. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04818866.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors, Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers, and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19.

Background Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) is thought to affect COVID-19 through modulating levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV2. We sought to assess the association between ACEi/ARB, biomarkers of inflammation, and outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods and Results We leveraged the ISIC (International Study of Inflammation in COVID-19), identified patients admitted for symptomatic COVID-19 between February 1, 2020 and June 1, 2021 for COVID-19, and examined the association between in-hospital ACEi/ARB use and all-cause death, need for ventilation, and need for dialysis. We estimated the causal effect of ACEi/ARB on the composite outcomes using marginal structural models accounting for serial blood pressure and serum creatinine measures. Of 2044 patients in ISIC, 1686 patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 398 (23.6%) patients who were previously on ACEi/ARB received at least 1 dose during their hospitalization for COVID-19. There were 215 deaths, 407 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and 124 patients who required dialysis during their hospitalization. Prior ACEi/ARB use was associated with lower levels of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor and C-reactive protein. In multivariable analysis, in-hospital ACEi/ARB use was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or dialysis (adjusted hazard ratio 0.49, 95% CI [0.36-0.65]). Conclusions In patients hospitalized for COVID-19, ACEi/ARB use was associated with lower levels of inflammation and lower risk of in-hospital outcomes. Clinical trials will define the role of ACEi/ARB in the treatment of COVID-19. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04818866.

In-hospital cardiac arrest in critically ill patients with covid-19: multicenter cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes associated with in-hospital cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation in critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Intensive care units at 68 geographically diverse hospitals across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Critically ill adults (age ≥18 years) with laboratory confirmed covid-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In-hospital cardiac arrest within 14 days of admission to an intensive care unit and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Among 5019 critically ill patients with covid-19, 14.0% (701/5019) had in-hospital cardiac arrest, 57.1% (400/701) of whom received cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Patients who had in-hospital cardiac arrest were older (mean age 63 (standard deviation 14) v 60 (15) years), had more comorbidities, and were more likely to be admitted to a hospital with a smaller number of intensive care unit beds compared with those who did not have in-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation were younger than those who did not (mean age 61 (standard deviation 14) v 67 (14) years). The most common rhythms at the time of cardiopulmonary resuscitation were pulseless electrical activity (49.8%, 199/400) and asystole (23.8%, 95/400). 48 of the 400 patients (12.0%) who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation survived to hospital discharge, and only 7.0% (28/400) survived to hospital discharge with normal or mildly impaired neurological status. Survival to hospital discharge differed by age, with 21.2% (11/52) of patients younger than 45 years surviving compared with 2.9% (1/34) of those aged 80 or older. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac arrest is common in critically ill patients with covid-19 and is associated with poor survival, particularly among older patients.