County-Level Sociodemographic Factors Associated with COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality in North and South Carolina.

BACKGROUND There is limited research regarding associations between county-level factors and COVID-19 incidence and mortality. While the Carolinas are geographically connected, they are not homogeneous, with statewide political and intra-state socioeconomic differences leading to heterogeneous spread between and within states.METHODS Infection and mortality data from Johns Hopkins University during the 7 months since the first reported case in the Carolinas was combined with county-level socioeconomic/demographic factors. Time series imputations were performed whenever county-level reported infections were implausible. Multivariate Poisson regression models were fitted to extract incidence (infection and mortality) rate ratios by county-level factor. State-level differences in filtered trends were also calculated. Geospatial maps and Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed stratifying by median county-level factor. Differences between North and South Carolina were identified.RESULTS Incidence and mortality rates were lower in North Carolina than South Carolina. Statistically significant higher incidence and mortality rates were associated with counties in both states with higher proportions of Black/African American populations and those without health insurance aged < 65 years. Counties with larger populations aged ≥ 75 years were associated with increased mortality (but decreased incidence) rates.LIMITATIONS COVID-19 data contained multiple inconsistencies, so imputation was needed, and covariate-based data was not synchronous and potentially insufficient in granularity given the epidemiology of the disease. County-level analyses imply within-county homogeneity, an assumption increasingly breached by larger counties.CONCLUSION While statewide interventions were initially implemented, inter-county racial/ethnic and socioeconomic variability points to the need for more heterogeneous interventions, including policies, as populations within particular counties may be at higher risk.

Outcomes of an expedited same-day discharge protocol following cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation.

BACKGROUND: With increasing constraints on healthcare resources, greater attention is being focused on improved resource utilization. Prior studies have demonstrated safety of same-day discharge following CIED implantation but are limited by vague protocols with long observation periods. In this study, we evaluate the safety of an expedited 2 hour same-day discharge protocol following CIED implantation. METHODS: Patients undergoing CIED implantation at three centers between 2015 and 2021 were included. Procedural, demographic, and adverse event data were abstracted from the electronic health record. Patients were divided into same-day discharge (SDD) and delayed discharge (DD) cohorts. The primary outcome was complications including lead malfunction requiring revision, pneumothorax, hemothorax, lead dislodgement, lead perforation with tamponade, and mortality within 30 days of procedure. Outcomes were compared between the two cohorts using the χ2 test. RESULTS: A total of 4543 CIED implantation procedures were included with 1557 patients (34%) in the SDD cohort. SDD patients were comparatively younger, were more likely to be male, and had fewer comorbidities than DD patients. Among SDD patients, the mean time to post-operative chest X-ray was 2.6 h. SDD had lower rates of complications (1.3% vs 2.1%, p = 0.0487) and acute care utilization post-discharge (9.6% vs 14.0%, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the 90-day infection rate between the cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: An expedited 2 hour same-day discharge protocol is safe and effective with low rates of complications, infection, and post-operative acute care utilization.