Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination Among Health System Personnel.

INTRODUCTION: One-third of the general public will not accept Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination but factors influencing vaccine acceptance among health care personnel (HCP) are not known. We investigated barriers and facilitators to vaccine acceptance within 3 months of regulatory approval (primary outcome) among adult employees and students at a tertiary-care, academic medical center. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional survey design with multivariable logistic regression. Covariates included age, gender, educational attainment, self-reported health status, concern about COVID-19, direct patient interaction, and prior influenza immunization. RESULTS: Of 18,250 eligible persons, 3,347 participated. Two in 5 (40.5%) HCP intend to delay (n = 1020; 30.6%) or forgo (n = 331; 9.9%) vaccination. Male sex (adjusted OR [aOR], 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-2.95; P < .001), prior influenza vaccination (aOR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.75-3.18; P < .001), increased concern about COVID-19 (aOR, 2.40; 95% CI, 2.07-2.79; P < .001), and postgraduate education (aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.65; P < .001) - but not age, direct patient interaction, or self-reported overall health - were associated with vaccine acceptance in multivariable analysis. Barriers to vaccination included concerns about long-term side effects (n = 1197, 57.1%), safety (n = 1152, 55.0%), efficacy (n = 777, 37.1%), risk-to-benefit ratio (n = 650, 31.0%), and cost (n = 255, 12.2%).Subgroup analysis of Black respondents indicates greater hesitancy to accept vaccination (only 24.8% within 3 months; aOR 0.13; 95% CI, 0.08-0.21; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Many HCP intend to delay or refuse COVID-19 vaccination. Policymakers should impartially address concerns about safety, efficacy, side effects, risk-to-benefit ratio, and cost. Further research with minority subgroups is urgently needed.

Beta-blockers to prevent symptomatic heart failure in patients with stage A and B heart failure.

beta-blockers have been well-studied in the treatment of the symptomatic stages of chronic heart failure. Frequently physicians treat patients with asymptomatic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and patients with hypertension on beta-blockers without clear evidence that there is value in doing so. Chronic heart failure poses an extraordinary economic burden; any effective therapy that limits the progression to symptomatic heart failure can probably reduce monetary expenditures in addition to potentially reducing morbidity and mortality. In this article, we review the available literature on using beta-blockers in stage A and B heart failure to prevent progression to the symptomatic stages. The literature reveals that there is no benefit in using beta-blockers to treat essential hypertension. In patients who experience LV dysfunction post-myocardial infarction, even if asymptomatic, there is improved mortality and a trend toward a reduction in progression to symptomatic heart failure. In patients with asymptomatic chronic LV dysfunction there are data that beta-blockers reduce LV dimensions and improve ejection fraction. Patients with hypertension should not be given beta-blockers as primary treatment. All patients with asymptomatic LV dysfunction should be treated with a beta-blocker, regardless of whether they experienced myocardial infarction.

Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators: device longevity is more important than smaller size: the patient's viewpoint.

The size of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) has been diminishing progressively. If two devices are otherwise identical in components, features and technology, the one with a larger battery should have a longer service life. Therefore, patients who receive smaller devices may require more frequent surgery to replace the devices. It is uncertain whether this tradeoff for smaller size is desired by patients. We surveyed 156 patients to determine whether patients prefer a larger, longer-lasting device, or a smaller device that is less noticeable but requires more frequent surgery. The effects of subgroups were evaluated; these included body habitus, age, gender, and patients seen at time of pulse generator replacement (PGR), initial implant, or follow-up. Among 156 patients surveyed, 151 expressed a preference. Of these, 90.1% preferred the larger device and 9.9% the smaller device (P <0.0001). Among thin patients, 79.5% preferred a larger device. Ninety percent of males and 89.2% of females selected the larger device. Among younger patients (< or =72 years), 89.6% preferred the larger device, as did 90.5% of older patients (>72 years). Of patients undergoing PGR or initial implants, 95% favored the larger device, as did 86% of patients presenting for follow-up. The vast majority of patients prefer a larger device to reduce the number of potential replacement operations. This preference crosses the spectrum of those with a previously implanted device, those undergoing initial implants, those returning for routine follow-up, and patients of various ages, gender, and habitus.