An online survey was conducted to compare the safety, tolerability and reactogenicity of available COVID-19 vaccines in different recipient groups. This survey was launched in February 2021 and ran for 11 days. Recipients of a first COVID-19 vaccine dose ≥ 7 days prior to survey completion were eligible. The incidence and severity of vaccination side effects were assessed. The survey was completed by 2002 respondents of whom 26.6% had a prior COVID-19 infection. A prior COVID-19 infection was associated with an increased risk of any side effect (risk ratio 1.08, 95% confidence intervals (1.05–1.11)), fever (2.24 (1.86–2.70)), breathlessness (2.05 (1.28–3.29)), flu-like illness (1.78 (1.51–2.10)), fatigue (1.34 (1.20–1.49)) and local reactions (1.10 (1.06–1.15)). It was also associated with an increased risk of severe side effects leading to hospital care (1.56 (1.14–2.12)). While mRNA vaccines were associated with a higher incidence of any side effect (1.06 (1.01–1.11)) compared with viral vector-based vaccines, these were generally milder (p < 0.001), mostly local reactions. Importantly, mRNA vaccine recipients reported a considerably lower incidence of systemic reactions (RR < 0.6) including anaphylaxis, swelling, flu-like illness, breathlessness and fatigue and of side effects requiring hospital care (0.42 (0.31–0.58)). Our study confirms the findings of recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating that COVID-19 vaccines are generally safe with limited severe side effects. For the first time, our study links prior COVID-19 illness with an increased incidence of vaccination side effects and demonstrates that mRNA vaccines cause milder, less frequent systemic side effects but more local reactions.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This multicenter study demonstrates that the use of a quadripolar LV lead results in significantly lower rates of lead-related problems and reduced procedural and fluoroscopic times for biventricular system implantation. This has important implications for LV pacing lead choice.

In ICD recipients for primary prevention of SCD, fQRS is not helpful in selecting a subgroup of patients who benefit from prophylactic ICD implantation.

Although, this study was underpowered by the small number of acute ischaemic events, ICD-based ST monitoring failed to provide a benefit over ICDs without this capability and increased unscheduled evaluations in patients with remote follow-up. The sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm still require validation.

Background: The neurally mediated syncope (NMS) is sustained by complex cardiac and vascular reflexes, acting on and amplified by central autonomic loops, resulting in bradycardia and hypotension. Hypothesis: Our aim was to assess whether the pathophysiology of NMS is also related to an abnormal peripheral vasoreactivity. Methods: We evaluated by ultrasound the flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD) and the nitrate-mediated dilation (NMD) in 17 patients with NMS, induced by drug-free tilt test in 6 subjects and by nitrate-potentiated tilt test in the other 11 cases; the syncope was classified as vasodepressive (VD) in 8 cases, cardioinhibitory (CI) in 7, and mixed in 2. Results: The FMD was not different from controls (10.2 ± 4.5 vs 11.4 ± 3.9, P = ns), with normal recovery times; the NMD was greater in fainting subjects than in controls (26.7 ± 7.3 vs 19.0 ± 3.6, P < 0.05), with higher values in VD than in CI syncope (31.1 ± 7.0 vs 23.1 ± 5.0, P = ns); compared to controls, subjects with NMS showed normal recovery times after FMD but longer recovery times after nitrate administration (13.0 ± 5.6 vs 6.3 ± 0.7 minutes, P < 0.05). Conclusions:The evaluation of endothelial function supports evidence that NMS is characterized by a marked and sustained endothelial-independent vasodilation, in the presence of a normal FMD; vascular hyperreactivity in response to nitrate administration is particularly overt in vasodepressive syncope and can explain the high rate of responses to nitrate administration during tilt test.