Vaccine-carditis study: Spanish multicenter registry of inflammatory heart disease after COVID-19 vaccination.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been a major scientific and medical achievement in the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, very infrequent cases of inflammatory heart disease have been described as adverse events, leading to uncertainty in the scientific community and in the general population. METHODS: The Vaccine-Carditis Registry has included all cases of myocarditis and pericarditis diagnosed within 30 days after COVID-19 vaccination since August 1, 2021 in 29 centers throughout the Spanish territory. The definitions of myocarditis (probable or confirmed) and pericarditis followed the consensus of the Centers for Disease Control and the Clinical Practice Guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. A comprehensive analysis of clinical characteristics and 3-month evolution is presented. RESULTS: From August 1, 2021, to March 10, 2022, 139 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were recorded (81.3% male, median age 28 years). Most cases were detected in the 1st week after administration of an mRNA vaccine, the majority after the second dose. The most common presentation was mixed inflammatory disease (myocarditis and pericarditis). 11% had left ventricular systolic dysfunction, 4% had right ventricular systolic dysfunction, and 21% had pericardial effusion. In cardiac magnetic resonance studies, left ventricular inferolateral involvement was the most frequent pattern (58%). More than 90% of cases had a benign clinical course. After a 3-month follow-up, the incidence of adverse events was 12.78% (1.44% mortality). CONCLUSIONS: In our setting, inflammatory heart disease after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 predominantly affects young men in the 1st week after the second dose of RNA-m vaccine and presents a favorable clinical course in most cases.

Exercise testing in COVID-19 era: Clinical profile, results and feasibility wearing a facemask.

BACKGROUND: No data are available about whether Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have led to changes in clinical profiles or results of exercise testing once the usual activity was reassumed, as well as if wearing a facemask has any impact on the tests. The aim of this study is to evaluate differences in the patients referred to exercise stress testing in the context of COVID-19 pandemic and analyse the feasibility and results of these tests wearing a facemask. METHODS: We included all patients referred for an exercise test from 1 June to 30 September 2020 and compared them with the patients attended within the same period in 2019 before and after propensity score matching. All patients referred in 2020 wore a facemask. RESULTS: A total of 854 patients were included: 398 in the 2020 group and 456 in 2019. No significant differences in baseline characteristics of the patients were observed, with the exception of dyspnoea, which was nearly twice as high in 2020 as compared with 2019. Regarding the results of the tests, no differences were observed, with almost 80% of maximal tests, similar functional capacity and over a 20% of positive exercise tests in both groups. These results remained after propensity score matching. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 pandemic has not changed the clinical profile of patients referred to exercise testing. In addition, performing exercise testing wearing a facemask is feasible, with no influence in functional capacity and clinical results.