Background: The aim of our study was to assess the impact the impact of gender and age on reactogenicity to three COVID-19 vaccine products: Biontech/Pfizer (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273) and AstraZeneca (ChAdOx). Additional analyses focused on the reduction in working capacity after vaccination and the influence of the time of day when vaccines were administered. Methods: We conducted a survey on COVID-19 vaccinations and eventual reactions among 73,000 employees of 89 hospitals of the Helios Group. On May 19th, 2021 all employees received an email, inviting all employees who received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 to participate using an attached link. Additionally, the invitation was posted in the group’s intranet page. Participation was voluntary and non-traceable. The survey was closed on June 21st, 2021. Results: 8375 participants reported on 16,727 vaccinations. Reactogenicity was reported after 74.6% of COVID-19 vaccinations. After 23.0% vaccinations the capacity to work was affected. ChAdOx induced impairing reactogenicity mainly after the prime vaccination (70.5%), while mRNA-1273 led to more pronounced reactions after the second dose (71.6%). Heterologous prime-booster vaccinations with ChAdOx followed by either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 were associated with the highest risk for impairment (81.4%). Multivariable analyses identified the factors older age, male gender and vaccine BNT162b as independently associated with lower odds ratio for both, impairing reactogenicity and incapacity to work. In the comparison of vaccine schedules, the heterologous combination ChAdOx + BNT162b or mRNA-1273 was associated with the highest and the homologue prime-booster vaccination with BNT162b with the lowest odds ratios. The time of vaccination had no significant influence. Conclusions: Around 75% of the COVID-19 vaccinations led to reactogenicity and nearly 25% of them led to one or more days of work loss. Major risk factors were female gender, younger age and the administration of a vaccine other than BNT162b2. When vaccinating a large part of a workforce against COVID-19, especially in professions with a higher proportion of young and women such as health care, employers and employees must be prepared for a noticeable amount of absenteeism. Assuming vaccine effectiveness to be equivalent across the vaccine combinations, to minimize reactogenicity, employees at risk should receive a homologous prime-booster immunisation with BNT162b2. Trial registration: The study was approved by the Ethic Committee of the Aerztekammer Berlin on May 27th, 2021 (Eth-37/21) and registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS 00025745). The study was supported by the Helios research grant HCRI-ID 2021-0272.

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent consequences led to profound changes in health care worldwide in 2020. Excess all-cause mortality was reported during incidence peaks of infections for several countries.^1-7 Moreover, significant reductions in inpatient hospital admission rates were observed in parallel to the pandemic waves for cardiovascular, respiratory, and intestinal diseases.^8-11 Especially in studies investigating patient treatment pathways for cardiac diseases, those hospitalization deficits were accompanied by an increased relative in-hospital mortality rate in some cohorts.^12-14 Whether numbers of absolute deaths were also increased in those or other disease groups is unclear because of lacking data but must be considered as 1 step toward adequately interpreting the implications of the pandemic on the health care system. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate hospitalization rates and compare relative in-hospital mortality rates with absolute mortality incidences across a broad spectrum of disease groups, comparing data from 2020 with those of the prepandemic years of 2016-2019 to better understand inpatient care pathways.

Objective Atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (AF) and heart failure (HF) often go hand in hand and, in combination, lead to an increased risk of death compared with patients with just one of both entities. Sex-specific differences in patients with AF and HF are under-reported. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate sex-specific catheter ablation (CA) use and acute in-hospital outcomes in patients with AF and concomitant HF in a retrospective cohort study. Methods Using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems and Operations and Procedures codes, administrative data of 75 hospitals from 2010 to 2018 were analysed to identify cases with AF and HF. Sex differences were compared for baseline characteristics, right and left atrial CA use, procedure-related adverse outcomes and in-hospital mortality. Results Of 54 645 analysed cases with AF and HF, 46.2% were women. Women were significantly older (75.4±9.5 vs 68.7±11.1 years, p<0.001), had different comorbidities (more frequently: cerebrovascular disease (2.4% vs 1.8%, p<0.001), dementia (5.3% vs 2.2%, p<0.001), rheumatic disease (2.1% vs 0.8%, p<0.001), diabetes with chronic complications (9.7% vs 9.1%, p=0.033), hemiplegia or paraplegia (1.7% vs 1.2%, p<0.001) and chronic kidney disease (43.7% vs 33.5%, p<0.001); less frequently: myocardial infarction (5.4% vs 10.5%, p<0.001), peripheral vascular disease (6.9% vs 11.3%, p<0.001), mild liver disease (2.0% vs 2.3%, p=0.003) or any malignancy (1.0% vs 1.3%, p<0.001), underwent less often CA (12.0% vs 20.7%, p<0.001), had longer hospitalisations (6.6±5.8 vs 5.2±5.2 days, p<0.001) and higher in-hospital mortality (1.6% vs 0.9%, p<0.001). However, in the multivariable generalised linear mixed model for in-hospital mortality, sex did not remain an independent predictor (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12, p=0.579) when adjusted for age and comorbidities. Vascular access complications requiring interventions (4.8% vs 4.2%, p=0.001) and cardiac tamponade (0.3% vs 0.1%, p<0.001) occurred more frequently in women, whereas stroke (0.6% vs 0.5%, p=0.179) and death (0.3% vs 0.1%, p=0.101) showed no sex difference in patients undergoing CA. Conclusions There are sex differences in patients with AF and HF with respect to demographics, resource utilisation and in-hospital outcomes. This needs to be considered when treating women with AF and HF, especially for a sufficient patient informed decision making in clinical practice.