Key PointsQuestionWhat are the baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) in Lombardy, Italy?FindingsIn this retrospective case series that involved 1591 critically ill patients admitted from February 20 to March 18, 2020, 99% (1287 of 1300 patients) required respiratory support, including endotracheal intubation in 88% and noninvasive ventilation in 11%; ICU mortality was 26%.MeaningIn this case series of critically ill patients admitted to ICUs in Lombardy, Italy, with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a high proportion required mechanical ventilation and ICU mortality was 26% as of March 25, 2020.

The purpose of this form is to provide readers of your manuscript with information about your other interests that could influence how they receive and understand your work. The form is designed to be completed electronically and stored electronically. It contains programming that allows appropriate data display. Each author should submit a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The form is in six parts. Identifying information. The work under consideration for publication. This section asks for information about the work that you have submitted for publication. The time frame for this reporting is that of the work itself, from the initial conception and planning to the present. The requested information is about resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking "No" means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party-that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check "Yes". Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. You should disclose interactions with ANY entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work. For example, if your article is about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer. Report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to you or your institution on your behalf over the 36 months prior to submission of the work. This should include all monies from sources with relevance to the submitted work, not just monies from the entity that sponsored the research. Please note that your interactions with the work's sponsor that are outside the submitted work should also be listed here. If there is any question, it is usually better to disclose a relationship than not to do so. For grants you have received for work outside the submitted work, you should disclose support ONLY from entities that could be perceived to be affected financially by the published work, such as drug companies, or foundations supported by entities that could be perceived to have a financial stake in the outcome. Public funding sources, such as government agencies, charitable foundations or academic institutions, need not be disclosed. For example, if a government agency sponsored a study in which you have been involved and drugs...

No abstract

Heart Teams are increasingly confronted with decision‐making in anatomically and clinically complex surgical candidates. Herein, we discuss the versatility of the endoaortic occlusion device (Intraclude; Edwards Lifesciences Inc) for the management of a various array of complex primary and reoperative cardiac cases. Three clinical scenarios are illustrated (ascending aortic pseudoaneurysm, mitral valve surgery after previous CABG, extensive thoracic aortic surgery with continuous visceral perfusion), suggesting the effectiveness of the patient‐specific strategy to minimize operative morbidity. Evolution of surgical techniques needs to be considered in decision‐making among alternative treatment strategies.