Fever following Covid-19 vaccination in subjects with Brugada syndrome: Incidence and management.

BACKGROUND: Fever is a potential side effect of the Covid-19 vaccination. Patients with Brugada syndrome (BrS) have an increased risk of life-threatening arrhythmias when experiencing fever. Prompt treatment with antipyretic drugs is suggested in these patients. AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the incidence and management of fever within 48 h from Covid-19 vaccination among BrS patients. METHODS: One hundred sixty-three consecutive patients were enrolled in a prospective registry involving five European hospitals with a dedicated inherited disease ambulatory. RESULTS: The mean age was 50 ± 14 years and 121 (75%) patients were male. Prevalence of Brugada electrocardiogram (ECG) pattern type-1, -2, and -3 was 32%, 44%, and 24%, respectively. Twenty-eight (17%) patients had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Fever occurred in 32 (19%) BrS patients after 16 ± 10 h from vaccination, with a peak of body temperature of 37.9° ± 0.5°. Patients with fever were younger (39 ± 13 vs. 48 ± 13 years, p = .04). No additional differences in terms of sex and cardiovascular risk factors were found between patients with fever and not. Twenty-seven (84%) out of 32 patients experienced mild fever and five (16%) moderate fever. Pharmacological treatment with antipyretic drugs was required in 18 (56%) out of 32 patients and was associated with the resolution of symptoms. No patient required hospital admission and no arrhythmic episode was recorded in patients with ICD within 48 h after vaccination. No induced type 1 BrS ECG pattern and new ECG features were found among patients with moderate fever. CONCLUSION: Fever is a common side effect in BrS patients after the Covid-19 vaccination. Careful evaluation of body temperature and prompt treatment with antipyretic drugs may be needed.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention before or after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Involving 1531 Patients.

Background: The optimal timing to perform percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is not well established. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing PCI before versus after TAVR. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases up to 5 April 2024 for studies that compared PCI before and after TAVR reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023470417). The analyzed outcomes were mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) at follow-up. Results: A total of 3 studies involving 1531 patients (pre-TAVR PCI n = 1240; post-TAVR PCI n = 291) were included in this meta-analysis following our inclusion criteria. Mortality was higher in the pre-TAVR PCI group (OR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.19-5.20; p = 0.02). No differences were found between PCI before and after TAVR for the risk of stroke (OR: 3.58; 95% CI: 0.70-18.15; p = 0.12) and MI (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.30-1.42; p = 0.29). Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed in patients with stable CAD undergoing TAVR that PCI after TAVR is associated with lower mortality compared with PCI before TAVR.