The benefit of vaccination against COVID-19 outweighs the potential risk of myocarditis and pericarditis

Vaccines against coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) have shown to be greatly effective in preventing viral spread, serious illness and death from this infectious disease and are therefore critical for the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the listing of myocarditis and pericarditis as possible rare side effects of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against COVID-19 by regulatory agencies has sparked discussion on the vaccines’ safety. The most important published cohort studies to date demonstrat that myocarditis is a very rare side effect after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, with an incidence of approximately 1–4 cases per 100,000 vaccinated persons. Young males (16–29 years) appear to be at highest risk, predominantly after receiving the second dose. The disease course is self-limiting in a vast majority of cases: 95% of patients show a rapid resolution of symptoms and normalisation of cardiac biomarkers, electro- and echocardiographic findings within days. Importantly, the available data suggest that the incidence rate of myocarditis in the context of COVID-19 is much greater than the risk of this side effect following vaccination. We conclude that the benefit of vaccination against COVID-19 outweighs the potential risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in both adolescents and adults. Prospective follow-up of patients who have developed these complications after vaccination is required to assess long-term outcomes.

Rate and Rhythm Control Treatment in the Elderly and Very Elderly Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: An Observational Cohort Study of 1497 Patients

Stroke prevention and rate or rhythm control are crucial in the management of atrial fibrillation (AF). There is recent evidence for benefit of early rhythm control, yet rate control is the first choice in elderly patients. However, the efficacy and safety of rate and rhythm control in the elderly population remains largely unexplored. Therefore, we analyzed electronic health record data and investigated prescribing patterns and mortality of both strategies in elderly patients with AF. Data from patients with AF who were aged ≥75 years, used a pharmacological rate or rhythm control strategy, and visited Cardiology Centers of the Netherlands between 2007 and 2018 were extracted. Of the 1497 patients (54% female), 316 (21%) were prescribed rhythm control and 1181 (79%) rate control. Patients aged >85 years (OR: 2.28; 95% CI: 1.51-3.44, P< 0.001) and those with permanent AF (OR: 2.71; 95% CI: 1.67-4.41, P< 0.001) were more likely to receive rate control, whereas those with paroxysmal AF were less likely to receive rate control (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.32-0.56, P< 0.001). After correction for relevant confounders, the mortality risk for patients using rhythm control and patients using rate control was similar (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.70-1.12, P = 0.31). A more liberal approach towards prescribing a rhythm control strategy to the elderly patients with AF may be warranted and seems safe. Our data underscore the need for prospective studies to provide definite answers on efficacy and safety of rhythm control in elderly patients with AF.