Cardiovascular
COVID-19 death risk and comorbidities
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
In 31,461 US adults with COVID-19, older age, male sex, Black race, and several comorbidities including heart disease predicted higher mortality.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cohort — Federated US EMR analysis (Jan–May 2020) across 24 organisations
- N
- N=31461 · Adults with COVID-19 codes or positive tests
- Population
- US adults with COVID-19 in a multi-organisation federated EMR network
- Outcome
- Mortality associations with Charlson comorbidities and demographics
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Mortality associated with increasing age, male sex, Black vs white race, prior MI, heart failure, dementia, chronic lung, liver, and renal disease, and metastatic solid tumour; common comorbidities included COPD and diabetes.
Methodology
Investigators analysed federated EMR data from 24 US organisations (Jan–May 2020) to relate Charlson comorbidities and demographics to mortality among adults with COVID-19 codes or positive tests.
Limitations
Causal effects of treating comorbidities, hospital vs community severity nuance, and complete ethnicity data (nearly a quarter unknown) remain limited.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Multiple studies in this library examine cardiovascular care with empirical patient or population outcomes rather than opinion alone.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Mortality associated with increasing age, male sex, Black vs white race, prior MI, heart failure, dementia, chronic lung, liver, and renal disease, and metastatic solid tumour; common comorbidities included COPD and diabetes.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Effect sizes and settings differ across cardiovascular care studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Effect sizes and settings differ across cardiovascular care studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.