Harrell, Camden

AbstractIntroductionThe impact of mRNA‐based coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) vaccines on atrial arrhythmias (AA) and ventricular arrhythmias incidence is unknown.MethodsBIOTRONIK Home Monitoring data and Medicare Claims data were utilized to identify individuals implanted with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) between 2010 and 2020 who received one or more doses of COVID‐19 vaccine in 2021. The burden of AA (%) in the 3 months postvaccination was compared to those noted in the preceding 3 months using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Sub‐analyses comparing the effects of the influenza vaccine against the COVID‐19 vaccine were also evaluated for individuals who received the influenza vaccine in 2020. A 1:1 propensity score match comparison between COVID‐19 vaccine and non‐vaccinated patients was also performed.ResultsFirst and second doses of the COVID‐19 vaccine were administered to 7757 and 6579 individuals with a CIED (age 76.2 ± 9.0 years, 49% males), respectively. While a small but statistically significant increase in the burden of AA was noted in the 3 months postvaccination compared to the preceding 3 months after the first dose of the COVID‐19 vaccine (0.43 ± 9.04%, p = .028) a similar rise in AA was found following the influenza vaccine and for matched patients who did not receive the COVID‐19 vaccine. No significant difference in device therapies was seen pre‐ and postvaccination.ConclusionsThough we report a small but significant increase in the number of CIED‐detected AAs following vaccination for COVID‐19 over a 3‐month window, we believe these results correlate more with time and the progressive nature of AF rather than the vaccine itself. While these data should not dissuade from the use of these vaccines, increased vigilance and prompt treatment of AF is required for high‐risk groups, specifically males over 70 years of age, following vaccination.

Background Shock‐reduction implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator programming (SRP) was associated with fewer therapies and improved survival in randomized controlled trials, but real‐world studies investigating SRP and associated outcomes are limited. Methods and Results The BIOTRONIK CERTITUDE registry was linked with the Medicare database. We included all patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implanted between August 22, 2012 and September 30, 2021 in the United States. SRP was defined as programming to either a therapy rate cutoff ≥188 beats per minute or number of intervals to detection ≥30/40 for treatment. Among 6781 patients (mean 74±9 years; 27% women), 3393 (50%) had SRP. Older age, secondary prevention indication, and device implantation in the southern or western United States were associated with lower use of SRP. The cumulative incidence rate of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator shocks was lower in the SRP group (5.1% shocks/patient year) compared with the non‐SRP group (7.2% shocks/patient year) (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73–0.96]; P =0.005). Over a median follow‐up of 2.9 years, 739 deaths occurred in the SRP group and 822 deaths occurred in the non‐SRP group (adjusted HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.88–1.07]; P =0.569). SRP was associated with a lower all‐cause mortality among patients without ischemic heart disease compared with patients with ischemic heart disease (adjusted HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.48–0.87] versus adjusted HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.92–1.14]; P interaction =0.004). Conclusions Adoption of SRP is low in real‐world clinical practice. Age, clinical variables, and geographic factors are associated with use of SRP. In this study, SRP‐associated decrease in mortality was limited to patients without ischemic heart disease.