Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Prognostication is complex in patients critically ill with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Objectives: To describe the natural history of ventilated critical COVID-19 patients.

Methods: Due to our legal milieu, active withdrawal of care is not permitted, providing an opportunity to examine the natural history of ventilated critical COVID-19 patients. This retrospective cohort included COVID-19 ICU patients who required mechanical ventilation. Respiratory and laboratory parameters were followed from initiation of mechanical ventilation for 14 days or until extubation, death or tracheostomy.

Results: A total of 112 patients were included in the analysis. Surviving patients were younger than non-survivors (62 years [range 54–69] vs. 66 years [range 62–71], P = 0.01). Survivors had a shorter time to intubation, shorter ventilation duration, and longer hospital stay. Respiratory parameters at intubation were not predictive of mortality. Nevertheless, on ventilation day 10, many of the ventilatory parameters were significantly better in survivors. Regarding laboratory parameters, neutrophil counts were significantly higher in non-survivors on day 1 and C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in survivors on day 10. Modeling using a generalized estimating equation showed small dynamic differences in ventilatory parameters predictive of survival.

Conclusions: In ventilated COVID-19 patients when there is no active care withdrawal, prognostication may be possible after a week; however, differences between survivors and non-survivors remain small.

Background: Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with reduced survival after coronary artery bypass surgery.

Objectives: To compare long-term survival among patients undergoing coronary surgery for reduced left ventricular function and severe ischemic MR[1] in whom the valve was either repaired, replaced, or no intervention was performed.

Methods: Eighty patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and severe MR underwent coronary bypass surgery. The mean age of the patients was 65 years (range 42–82), and 63 (79%) were male. Sixty-three (79%) were in preoperative NYHA functional class III-IV (mean NYHA 3.3), and 26 (32%) were operated on an urgent/emergent basis. Coronary artery bypass surgery was performed in all patients. The mitral valve was repaired in 38 and replaced in 14, and in 28 there was no intervention. The clinical profile was similar in the three groups, although patients undergoing repair were slightly younger.

Results: Operative mortality was 15% (8%, 14%, and 25% for the repair, replacement and no intervention respectively; not significant). Long-term follow up was 100% complete, for a mean of 38 months (range 2–92). Twenty-nine patients (57%) were in NYHA I-II (mean NYHA 2.3). Among the surgery survivors, late survival was improved in the repair group compared to the other groups (P < 0.05). Predictors for late mortality were non-repair of the mitral valve, residual MR, and stroke (P = 0.005).

Conclusions: Patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy and severe MR undergoing coronary bypass surgery should have a mitral procedure at the time of surgery. Mitral valve repair offers a survival advantage as compared to replacement or no intervention on the valve. Patients with residual MR had the worst results.