Background and Objectives: Pregnant women are more likely to develop a more severe course of COVID-19 than their non-pregnant peers. There are many arguments for the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review concerning the approach of pregnant women towards vaccination against COVID-19, with particular regard to determinants of vaccination acceptance. Materials and Methods: Articles were reviewed in which the aim was to evaluate—via a survey or questionnaire—the acceptance and decision to undergo vaccination against COVID-19. The articles were subjected to review according to recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA). Results: In various studies, the percentage of pregnant women accepting the COVID-19 vaccine was between 29.7% and 77.4%. The strongest factors co-existing with the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy were trust in the importance and effectiveness of the vaccine, explicit communication about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women, acceptance of other vaccinations such as those for influenza, belief in the importance of vaccines/mass vaccination in one’s own country, anxiety about COVID-19, trust in public health agencies/health science, as well as compliance to mask guidelines. The remaining factors were older age, higher education, and socioeconomic status. Conclusions: This review allowed us to show that geographic factors (Asian, South American countries) and pandemic factors (different threats and risks from infection) significantly influence the acceptance of vaccines. The most significant factors affecting acceptance are those related to public awareness of the risk of infection, vaccine safety, and the way in which reliable information about the need and safety of vaccines is provided. Professional and reliable patient information by obstetricians and qualified medical personnel would significantly increase the level of confidence in vaccination against COVID-19.

Human rhinoviruses (RVs) are a major cause of exacerbations in asthma and other chronic airway diseases. A characteristic feature of asthmatic epithelium is goblet cell metaplasia and mucus hypersecretion. Bronchial epithelium is also an important source of lipid mediators, including pro- and antiinflammatory eicosanoids. By using air–liquid interface cultures of airway epithelium from patients with asthma and nonasthmatic control subjects, we compared RV16 replication–induced changes in mRNA expression of asthma candidate genes and eicosanoid production in the epithelium with or without IL-13–induced mucus metaplasia. Mucus metaplastic epithelium was characterized by a 20-fold less effective replication of RV16 and blunted changes in gene expression; this effect was seen to the same extent in patients with asthma and control subjects. We identified ciliary cells as the main target for RV16 by immunofluorescence imaging and demonstrated that the numbers of ciliary cells decreased in RV16-infected epithelium. RV16 infection of mucociliary epithelium resulted in overexpression of genes associated with bronchial remodeling (e.g., MUC5AC, FGF2, and HBEGF), induction of cyclooxygenase-2, and increased secretion of prostaglandins. These responses were similar in both studied groups. These data indicate that structural changes associated with mucus metaplasia renders airway epithelium less susceptible to RV infection. Thus, exacerbations of the lung disease caused by RV may result from severe impairment in mucociliary clearance or activation of immune defense rather than from preferential infection of mucus metaplastic epithelium. Repeated rhinoviral infections of compromised epithelium may contribute to the remodeling of the airways.

Background: Whereas the efficacy and safety of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) have been confirmed in de novo calcified coronary lesions, little is known about its utility in treating stent underexpansion. This study aimed to investigate the impact of IVL in treating stent underexpansion. Methods and Results: Consecutive patients with stent underexpansion treated with IVL entered the multicenter IVL-Dragon Registry. The procedural success (primary efficacy endpoint) was defined as a relative stent expansion >80%. Thirty days device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) (defined as a composite of cardiac death, target lesion revascularization, or target vessel myocardial infarction) was the secondary endpoint. A total of 62 patients were enrolled. The primary efficacy endpoint was achieved in 72.6% of patients. Both stent underexpansion 58.5% (47.5–69.7) vs. 11.4% (5.8–20.7), p < 0.001, and the stenotic area 82.6% (72.4–90.8) vs. 21.5% (11.1–37.2), p < 0.001, measured by quantitative coronary angiography improved significantly after IVL. Intravascular imaging confirmed increased stent expansion following IVL from 37.5% (16.0–66.0) to 86.0% (69.2–90.7), p < 0.001, by optical coherence tomography and from 57.0% (31.5–77.2) to 89.0% (85.0–92.0), p = 0.002, by intravascular ultrasound. Secondary endpoint occurred in one (1.6%) patient caused by cardiac death. There was no target lesion revascularization or target vessel myocardial infarction during the 30-day follow-up. Conclusions: In this real-life, largest-to-date analysis of IVL use to manage underexpanded stent, IVL proved to be an effective and safe method for facilitating stent expansion and increasing luminal gain.

Background: Data regarding the use of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting balloons (DEB) versus thin-strut drug-eluting stents (thin-DES) for treating DES in-stent restenosis in everyday clinical practice is scarce. Our goal was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of DEB versus thin-DES in DES in-stent restenosis. Methods: Consecutive patients with DES in-stent restenosis who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention between 2008 and 2019 entered the multicenter DEB-DRAGON Registry with a follow-up of 3 years. Patients who received DEB at the index procedure (n=557, 49.9%) were compared with those who received thin-DES (n=560, 50.1%). Results: Analysis of the unmatched cohort revealed lower rates of target lesion revascularization (9.1% versus 13.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58 [95% CI, 0.41–0.83], P =0.003), target vessel revascularization (11.8% versus 16.7%; HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.45–0.84], P =0.003) and device-oriented composite end point, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel myocardial infarction (12.7% versus 16.0%; HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.50–0.94], P =0.018) in the thin-DES group compared with the DEB group. The incidence of cardiac death, target vessel-myocardial infarction, and myocardial infarction were similar in both groups. However, after propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in target lesion revascularization (11.2% versus 11.2%; HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.55–1.51], P =0.707), target vessel revascularization (13.4% versus 14.2%; HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.55–1.36], P =0.523), and device-oriented composite end point (14.2% versus 14.2%; HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.58–1.42], P =0.667) between the thin-DES and DEB group, respectively. Conclusions: This analysis of a real-life registry revealed similar long-term outcomes of thin-DES and DEB in DES in-stent restenosis regarding target lesion revascularization, myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and device-oriented composite end point. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04415216.