Procedure Volume and Outcomes With WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion.

BACKGROUND: Procedure volumes are associated with outcomes for many cardiovascular procedures, leading to guidelines on minimum volume thresholds for certain procedures; however, the volume-outcome relationship with left atrial appendage occlusion is poorly understood. As such, we sought to determine the relationship between hospital and physician volume and WATCHMAN left atrial appendage occlusion procedural success overall and with the new generation WATCHMAN FLX device. METHODS: We performed an analysis of WATCHMAN procedures (January 2019 to October 2021) from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry. Three-level hierarchical generalized linear models were used to assess the adjusted relationship between procedure volume and procedural success (device released with peridevice leak <5 mm, no in-hospital major adverse events). RESULTS: Among 87 480 patients (76.2±8.0 years; 58.8% men; mean CHA2DS2-VASc score, 4.8±1.5) from 693 hospitals, the procedural success rate was 94.2%. With hospital volume Q4 (greatest volume) as the reference, the likelihood of procedural success was significantly less among Q1 (odds ratio [OR], 0.66 [CI, 0.57-0.77]) and Q2 (OR, 0.78 [CI, 0.69-0.90]) but not Q3 (OR, 0.95 [CI, 0.84-1.07]). With physician volume Q4 (greatest volume) as the reference, the likelihood of procedural success was significantly less among Q1 (OR, 0.72 [CI, 0.63-0.82]), Q2 (OR, 0.79 [CI, 0.71-0.89]), and Q3 (OR, 0.88 [CI, 0.79-0.97]). Among WATCHMAN FLX procedures, there was attenuation of the volume-outcome relationships, with statistically significant but modest absolute differences of only ≈1% across volume quartiles. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary national analysis, greater hospital and physician WATCHMAN volumes were associated with increased procedure success. The WATCHMAN FLX transition was associated with increased procedural success and less heterogeneity in outcomes across volume quartiles. These findings indicate the importance of understanding the volume-outcome relationship for individual left atrial appendage occlusion devices.

In-hospital complications associated with pulmonary vein isolation with adjunctive lesions: the NCDR AFib Ablation Registry.

AIMS: No prior study has been adequately powered to evaluate real-world safety outcomes in those receiving adjunctive ablation lesions beyond pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). We sought to evaluate characteristics and in-hospital complications among patients undergoing PVI with and without adjunctive lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry AFib Ablation Registry undergoing first-time atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation between 2016 and 2020 were identified and stratified into paroxysmal (PAF) and persistent AF, and separated into PVI only, PVI + cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation, and PVI + adjunctive (superior vena cava isolation, coronary sinus, vein of Marshall, atypical atrial flutter lines, other). Adjusted odds of adverse events were calculated using multivariable logistic regression. A total of 50 937 patients [PAF: 30 551 (60%), persistent AF: 20 386 (40%)] were included. Among those with PAF, there were no differences in the adjusted odds of complications between PVI + CTI or PVI + adjunctive when compared with PVI only. Among persistent AF, PVI + adjunctive was associated with a higher risk of any complication [3.0 vs. 4.5%, odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.58] and major complication (0.8 vs. 1.4%, OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.10-2.21), while no differences were observed in PVI + CTI compared with PVI only. Overall, there was high heterogeneity in adjunctive lesion type, and those receiving adjunctive lesions had a higher comorbidity burden. CONCLUSION: Additional CTI ablation was common without an increased risk of complications. Adjunctive lesions other than CTI are commonly performed in those with more comorbidities and were associated with an increased risk of complications in persistent AF, although the current analysis is limited by high heterogeneity in adjunctive lesion set type.

Initial Findings From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Procedures.

BACKGROUND: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) AFib Ablation Registry was created to assess real-world prevalence, demographic characteristics, procedural management, and outcomes of patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedures. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to characterize the patient, hospital, and physician characteristics and in-hospital outcomes related to AF ablation in the first 5 years of the registry. METHODS: This paper describes the AFib Ablation Registry structure and governance, outcome assessment processes, data quality, and data collection processes. The characteristics of the patient population, hospitals, and in-hospital outcomes are also described. RESULTS: A total of 76,219 patients were included in the registry between January 2016 and December 2020 (mean age 65.5 ± 10.3 years, 65.2% male, 55.8% paroxysmal AF, mean CHA2DS2-VASc score 2.7 ± 1.6) treated by 708 physicians in 162 hospitals. Successful isolation of all pulmonary veins was achieved in 92.4% of patients. The prevalence of any complication during procedural admission was 2.50% and major complication was 0.9%, including significant bradycardia in 0.47%, heart failure in 0.47%, and pericardial effusion requiring intervention in 0.44%. Hospitalization >1 day occurred in 11.8% of patients, and in-hospital death was rare (n = 41 [0.05%]). CONCLUSIONS: The NCDR AFib Ablation Registry is the largest multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients undergoing catheter ablation worldwide. Results in the first 5 years showed that successful pulmonary vein isolation is achieved in the majority of patients, with a low rate of complications. Future studies from the registry will assess practice trends, evaluate treatment patterns associated with different patient outcomes, and support development of evidence-based guidelines.

Measuring health disparities using a continuous social risk factor.

OBJECTIVE: To propose and evaluate a novel approach for measuring hospital-level disparities according to the effect of a continuous, polysocial risk factor on those outcomes. STUDY SETTING: Our cohort consisted of Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) patients 65 years and older admitted to acute care hospitals for one of six common conditions or procedures. Medicare administrative claims data for six hospital readmission measures including hospitalizations from July 2015 to June 2018 were used. STUDY DESIGN: We adapted existing methodologies that were developed to report hospital-level disparities using dichotomous social risk factors (SRFs). The existing methods report disparities within and across hospitals; we developed and tested modified approaches for both methods using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Socioeconomic Status Index. We applied the adapted methodologies to six 30-day hospital readmission measures included in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program measures. We compared the within- and across-hospital results for each to those obtained from using the original methods and dichotomizing the AHRQ SES Index into "low" and "high" scores. DATA COLLECTION: We used Medicare FFS administrative claims data linked to U.S. Census data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: For all six readmission measures we find that, when compared with the existing methods, the methods for continuous SRFs provide disparity results for more facilities though across a narrower range of values. Measures of disparity based on this approach are moderately to highly correlated with those based on a dichotomous version of the same risk factor, while reflecting a fuller spectrum of risk. This approach represents an opportunity for detection of provider-level results that more closely align with underlying social risk. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated the feasibility and utility of estimating hospital disparities of care using a continuous, polysocial risk factor. This approach expands the potential for reporting hospital-level disparities while better accounting for the multifactorial nature of social risk on hospital outcomes.

Sex-based differences in atrial fibrillation ablation adverse events.

OBJECTIVE: Older, relatively small studies identified female sex as a risk factor for adverse events after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to assess contemporary sex-based differences in baseline and procedural characteristics, adverse events, and quality of life among adults undergoing catheter ablation for AF. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, we evaluated those enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry AFib Ablation Registry between January 2016 and September 2020. Using logistic regression, we analysed the association between patient sex and in-hospital adverse events. RESULTS: Among 58 960 adults (34.6% women) from 150 centres undergoing AF ablation by 706 physicians, women were older (68 vs 64 years, p<0.001), had more comorbidities, and had lower AF-related quality of life at the time of ablation (mean Atrial Fibrillation Effect on QualiTy-of-life Questionnaire) score: 51.8 vs 62.2, p<0.001). Women had a higher risk of hospitalisation >1 day (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.41 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.49)), major adverse event (aOR 1.60 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.92)) and any adverse event (aOR 1.57 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.75)). Women had a higher risk of bradycardia requiring pacemaker, phrenic nerve damage, pericardial effusion, bleeding and vascular injury, but had no differences in death or acute pulmonary vein isolation. CONCLUSIONS: Among almost 60 000 patients in the largest prospective registry of AF ablation procedures, female sex was independently associated with a higher risk of hospitalisation >1 day, adverse events, and reduced quality of life, although there were no differences in death or acute pulmonary vein isolation.

Device-Sizing and Associated Complications With Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Findings From the NCDR LAAO Registry.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion is an important alternative to anticoagulation in select patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Trends in real-world device sizing and associated short-term complications have not been characterized. METHODS: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (NCDR LAAO) Registry, patients who underwent left atrial appendage occlusion with a Watchman 2.5 device from January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2020, were identified. Patients were stratified by device size based on left atrial appendage orifice size, and categorized as receiving a device that was undersized, oversized, or per manufacturer recommendation. Relationships between device sizing and short-term outcomes, including pericardial effusion, device embolism, and significant leak, were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 68 456 patients, 6539 (10.5%) of patients received undersized devices, 17 791 (26.0%) according to manufacturer recommendations, and 44 126 (64.4%) received an oversized device. The 27-mm device was most commonly deployed [21 736 (31.8%)], whereas the smallest and largest devices (21 and 33 mm) were least commonly deployed [7695 (11.2%) and 9077 (13.3%), respectively]. Compared with manufacturer recommended sizing, there was no difference in the odds of pericardial effusion for either undersized (1.048 [95% CI' 0.801-1.372]; P=0.733) or oversized (1.101 [95% CI' 0.933-1.298]; P=0.254) devices. Similarly, relative to manufacturer recommended sizing, the odds of a composite adverse outcome of device migration or embolization and significant peridevice leak at 45 days were similar among undersized devices (1.030 [95% CI' 0.735-1.444]; P=0.863) and favorable for oversized devices (0.701 [95% CI' 0.561-0.876]; P=0.002) devices, primarily driven by lower odds of leak. Selection of oversized devices increased significantly over the study period (from 60.3% in 2016 to 66.0% in 2020; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion with the first-generation Watchman device, receipt of oversized devices was common and increased over time. The high prevalence of oversizing was associated with lower odds of significant leak or device embolization without increased odds of other adverse events.

Comparative Safety of Transcatheter LAAO With the First-Generation Watchman and Next-Generation Watchman FLX Devices.

BACKGROUND: Procedural complications limit the clinical benefit of transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). Next-generation devices incorporate design modifications intended to improve procedural safety, but their clinical impact has not been described. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare in-hospital outcomes for the Watchman FLX with the predicate Watchman 2.5 device. METHODS: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry was used to identify patients who received the Watchman FLX and an identical number of patients receiving the Watchman 2.5 at the same sites directly preceding the first Watchman FLX case at each site. The primary endpoint was in-hospital major adverse events (MAE), defined as a composite of death, cardiac arrest, stroke, transient ischemic attack, intracranial hemorrhage, systemic arterial embolism, major bleeding, major vascular complication, myocardial infarction, pericardial effusion requiring intervention (percutaneous or surgical), and device embolization. A secondary analysis was performed using 2:1 propensity score matching of patients receiving the Watchman 2.5 or Watchman FLX. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 27,013 patients receiving each device. The rate of in-hospital MAE was significantly lower for the Watchman FLX compared with the Watchman 2.5 (1.35% vs 2.40%; adjusted OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.50-0.65; P < 0.0001), driven largely by fewer pericardial effusions requiring intervention (0.42% vs 1.23%; adjusted OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.28-0.42; P < 0.0001). The Watchman FLX was also associated with significant lower rates of the individual endpoints of in-hospital mortality (0.12% vs 0.24%; P < 0.0001), major bleeding (1.08% vs 2.05%; P < 0.0001), cardiac arrest (0.13% vs 0.24%; P = 0.006), and device embolization (0.02% vs 0.06%; P = 0.028), while myocardial infarction, stroke, and major vascular complications did not differ between groups. Propensity score matching analysis demonstrated similar results, with lower rates of MAE with the Watchman FLX (1.34% vs 2.58%; OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.46-0.58; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter LAAO with the Watchman FLX was associated with lower rates of in-hospital MAE compared with the predicate Watchman device, including mortality, pericardial effusion, major bleeding, cardiac arrest, and device embolization. This may favorably influence the balance of risks and benefits of transcatheter LAAO for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Indications for Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in the United States and Associated In-Hospital Outcomes: Results From the NCDR LAAO Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration approved left atrial appendage occlusion with the Watchman device for patients who are at increased stroke risk and are suitable for oral anticoagulation but who have an appropriate reason to seek a nondrug alternative. These broad criteria raise the question of their interpretation in clinical practice. There is a lack of studies comprehensively evaluating the indications for Watchman implantation among a large series of patients from contemporary, real-world practice in the United States. METHODS: We used the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry to identify Watchman procedures performed between 2016 and 2018. We assessed procedural indications for Watchman implantation in the United States and evaluated the association between procedural indications and in-hospital adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 38 314 procedures were included. The mean patient age was 76.1±8.1 years, and 58.9% were men. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.8±1.5, whereas the mean hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol (HAS-BLED) score was 3.0±1.1. Prior stroke or transient ischemic attack was reported in 40.2% and prior bleeding in 70.1%, with gastrointestinal bleeding being most common (41.9%). The most common site-reported procedural indications for Watchman implantation were increased thromboembolic risk (64.8%) and history of major bleed (64.3%), followed by high fall risk (35.5%). Most (71.9%) had ≥2 procedural indications. Patients with high fall risk had increased risk of in-hospital adverse events (adjusted OR, 1.12; P=0.025), but no other differences were found in the risk of in-hospital adverse events by procedural indication. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry, the most common procedural indications for Watchman implantation were increased thromboembolic risk, history of major bleed, and high fall risk. A majority of patients had multiple procedural indications. High fall risk conferred a modestly increased risk of in-hospital adverse events.

Antithrombotic Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Pivotal trials of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) used specific postprocedure treatment protocols. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate patterns of postprocedure care after LAAO with the Watchman device in clinical practice and compare the risk of adverse events for different discharge antithrombotic strategies. METHODS: We evaluated patients in the LAAO Registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry who underwent LAAO with the Watchman device between 2016 and 2018. We assessed adherence to the full postprocedure trial protocol including standardized follow-up, imaging, and antithrombotic agents and then evaluated the most commonly used antithrombotic strategies and compared the rates and risk of adverse events at 45 days and 6 months by means of multivariable COX frailty regression. RESULTS: Among 31,994 patients undergoing successful LAAO, only 12.2% received the full postprocedure treatment protocol studied in pivotal trials; the most common protocol deviations were with discharge antithrombotic medications. The most common discharge medication strategies were warfarin and aspirin (36.9%), direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and aspirin (20.8%), warfarin only (13.5%), DOAC only (12.3%), and dual antiplatelet therapy (5.0%). In multivariable Cox frailty regression, the adjusted risk of any adverse event through the 45-day follow-up visit were significantly lower for discharge on warfarin alone (HR: 0.692; 95% CI: 0.569-0.841) and DOAC alone (HR: 0.731; 95% CI: 0.574-0.930) compared with warfarin and aspirin. Warfarin alone retained lower risk at the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary U.S. practice, practitioners rarely used the full U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved postprocedure treatment protocols studied in pivotal trials of the Watchman device. Discharge after implantation on warfarin or DOAC without concomitant aspirin was associated with lower risk of adverse outcomes.

Patient-Level Analysis of Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Practice Versus Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes among patients from the PROTECT-AF (WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic PROTECTion in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) and PREVAIL (Evaluation of the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage [LAA] Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy) left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) trials with matched patients from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry using patient-level data. BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing LAAO in clinical practice generally have more comorbidities than trial participants. METHODS: Propensity-matched analyses, with up to 3 registry patients matched to each trial patient, were performed using Cox proportional hazards and Fine-Gray models. RESULTS: A total of 1,904 registry patients were matched to 667 trial LAAO patients; 1,010 registry patients were matched to 348 warfarin patients. Compared with registry patients, trial LAAO patients experienced more pericardial effusion requiring intervention (3.8% vs 0.6%, P < 0.001), periprocedural ischemic stroke (0.9% vs 0.2%, P = 0.005), and failed device implantation (7.5% vs 3.6%, P < 0.001). The 425-day risk of ischemic stroke in trial LAAO patients was higher than in registry patients (2.70% vs 1.21%; HR: 1.951; P = 0.03); warfarin patients had comparable rates of ischemic stroke compared with registry patients (1.15% vs 1.29%; HR: 0.728; P = 0.57). Hemorrhagic stroke risk was similar among trial LAAO and registry patients (P = 0.88). Hemorrhagic stroke risk was greater among warfarin patients versus registry patients (1.44% vs 0.20%; HR: 5.871, P = 0.03). Mortality was lower in trial LAAO patients than in registry patients (2.92% vs 6.23%; HR: 0.477; P = 0.004), a difference attributable to noncardiovascular deaths. Mortality was similar (P = 0.44) among trial warfarin (4.48%) and registry (5.86%) patients. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, patients who meet trial criteria and undergo LAAO experience a lower risk of ischemic stroke, a similar risk of hemorrhagic stroke, and a higher risk of death after implant versus LAAO trial patients. (WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic PROTECTion in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [PROTECT-AF], NCT00129545; Evaluation of the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage [LAA] Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy [PREVAIL], NCT01182441).

Clinical Impact of Residual Leaks Following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Insights From the NCDR LAAO Registry.

BACKGROUND: Data on the impact of residual peri-device leak after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) are limited. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to explore the association of peri-device leak with adverse clinical events. METHODS: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry was queried to identify patients undergoing LAAO between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. Patients were classified according to leak size on echocardiography at 45 ± 14 days (0 mm, no leak; >0-5 mm, small leak; and >5 mm, large leak). RESULTS: A total of 51,333 patients were included, of whom 37,696 (73.4%) had no leak, 13,258 (25.8%) had small leaks, and 379 (0.7%) had large leaks. The proportion of patients on warfarin at 45 days was higher in the large vs small or no leak cohorts (44.9% vs 34.4% and 32.4%, respectively; P < 0.001). At 6 and 12 months, anticoagulant utilization decreased but remained more frequent in patients with large leaks. Thromboembolic and bleeding events were uncommon in all groups. However, compared with patients with no leak, those with small leaks had slightly higher odds of stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolization (adjusted HR: 1.152; 95% CI: 1.025-1.294), major bleeding (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.029-1.120), and any major adverse events (HR: 1.102; 95% CI: 1.048-1.160). There were no significant differences in adverse events between patients with large leaks and patients with small or no leaks. CONCLUSIONS: Small (>0-5 mm) leaks after LAAO were associated with a modestly higher incidence of thromboembolic and bleeding events; large leaks (>5 mm) were not associated with adverse events, although higher proportions of these patients were maintained on anticoagulation. Newer devices with improved seal might mitigate the events associated with residual leaks.

Clinical Outcomes at 1 Year Following Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to report 1-year clinical outcomes following commercial transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in the United States. BACKGROUND: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry was initiated to meet a condition of Medicare coverage and allow the assessment of clinical outcomes. The 1-year rates of thromboembolic events after transcatheter LAAO in such a large cohort of "real-world" patients have not been previously reported. METHODS: Patients entered into the National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry for a Watchman procedure between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018, were included. The primary endpoint was ischemic stroke. Key secondary endpoints included the rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, mortality, and major bleeding. Major bleeding was defined as any bleeding requiring hospitalization, and/or causing a decrease in hemoglobin level > 2g/dL, and/or requiring blood transfusion that was not hemorrhagic stroke. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for 1-year estimates of cumulative event rates. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 36,681 patients. The mean age was 76.0 ± 8.1 years, the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.8 ± 1.5, and the mean HAS-BLED score was 3.0 ± 1.1. Prior stroke was present in 25.5%, clinically relevant bleeding in 69.5%, and intracranial bleeding in 11.9%. Median follow-up was 374 days (IQR: 212-425 days). The Kaplan-Meier-estimated 1-year rate of ischemic stroke was 1.53% (95% CI: 1.39%-1.69%), the rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was 2.19% (95% CI: 2.01%-2.38%), and the rate of mortality was 8.52% (95% CI: 8.19%-8.87%). The 1-year estimated rate of major bleeding was 6.93% (95% CI: 6.65%-7.21%). Most bleeding events occurred between discharge and 45 days following the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: This study characterizes important outcomes in a national cohort of patients undergoing transcatheter LAAO in the United States. Clinicians and patients can integrate these data in shared decision making when considering this therapy.

New Metrics for Assessing the State Performance in Combating the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Previous research has noted that many factors greatly influence the spread of COVID-19. Contrary to explicit factors that are measurable, such as population density, number of medical staff, and the daily test rate, many factors are not directly observable, for instance, culture differences and attitudes toward the disease, which may introduce unobserved heterogeneity. Most contemporary COVID-19 related research has focused on modeling the relationship between explicitly measurable factors and the response variable of interest (such as the infection rate or the death rate). The infection rate is a commonly used metric for evaluating disease progression and a state's mitigation efforts. Because unobservable sources of heterogeneity cannot be measured directly, it is hard to incorporate them into the quantitative assessment and decision-making process. In this study, we propose new metrics to study a state's performance by adjusting the measurable county-level covariates and unobservable state-level heterogeneity through random effects. A hierarchical linear model (HLM) is postulated, and we calculate two model-based metrics-the standardized infection ratio (SDIR) and the adjusted infection rate (AIR). This analysis highlights certain time periods when the infection rate for a state was high while their SDIR was low and vice versa. We show that trends in these metrics can give insight into certain aspects of a state's performance. As each state continues to develop their individualized COVID-19 mitigation strategy and ultimately works to improve their performance, the SDIR and AIR may help supplement the crude infection rate metric to provide a more thorough understanding of a state's performance.

Disparities in Excess Mortality Associated with COVID-19 - United States, 2020.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected Hispanic or Latino, non-Hispanic Black (Black), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN), and non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NH/PI) populations in the United States. These populations have experienced higher rates of infection and mortality compared with the non-Hispanic White (White) population (1-5) and greater excess mortality (i.e., the percentage increase in the number of persons who have died relative to the expected number of deaths for a given place and time) (6). A limitation of existing research on excess mortality among racial/ethnic minority groups has been the lack of adjustment for age and population change over time. This study assessed excess mortality incidence rates (IRs) (e.g., the number of excess deaths per 100,000 person-years) in the United States during December 29, 2019-January 2, 2021, by race/ethnicity and age group using data from the National Vital Statistics System. Among all assessed racial/ethnic groups (non-Hispanic Asian [Asian], AI/AN, Black, Hispanic, NH/PI, and White populations), excess mortality IRs were higher among persons aged ≥65 years (426.4 to 1033.5 excess deaths per 100,000 person-years) than among those aged 25-64 years (30.2 to 221.1) and those aged <25 years (-2.9 to 14.1). Among persons aged <65 years, Black and AI/AN populations had the highest excess mortality IRs. Among adults aged ≥65 years, Black and Hispanic persons experienced the highest excess mortality IRs of >1,000 excess deaths per 100,000 person-years. These findings could help guide more tailored public health messaging and mitigation efforts to reduce disparities in mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States,* by identifying the racial/ethnic groups and age groups with the highest excess mortality rates.