MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7102412465 · doi:10.52338/apps.2025.5135

Systematic Review On Acute Myocardial Infarction And Post-Ischemic Heart Failure After Covid-19 Vaccination: Current Evidence On The Effects Of Vaccines. In Each Paragraph, Cite References From 2021 To 2025

2025· article· W7102412465 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failureMyocardial infarctionVaccinationObservational studyIncidence (geometry)Critical appraisalMeta-analysisEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction:The COVID-19 pandemic has required the rapid development of vaccines on a large scale.Although the benefits of vaccination in reducing hospitalizations and deaths are widely documented, questions have arisen about possible adverse cardiovascular events, particularly acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and post-ischemic heart failure.Objective: To critically synthesize the evidence available between 2021 and 2025 on the occurrence of AMI and post-ischemic heart failure after COVID-19 vaccination, considering different vaccine platforms and comparing them with the risks arising from SARS-CoV-2 infection itself.Methodology: This is a systematic review conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 protocol.The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO databases, and preprint registries (medRxiv and bioRxiv) were consulted, covering publications from 2021 to 2025.Clinical trials, observational studies, series, and case reports describing AMI and/or heart failure after vaccination were included.Methodological quality was assessed using validated tools (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, RoB 2, AMSTAR-2).Results: A total of 1,384 articles were identified, of which 42 met the inclusion criteria.In total, the studies included more than 45 million vaccinees in different regions of the world.The incidence of post-vaccination AMI was low (2 to 5 cases per 100,000 individuals), with no significant increase in risk in pooled analyses (RR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.95-1.10).For post-ischemic heart failure, there was no causal association with vaccination (RR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.88-1.05).In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a substantial increase in risk (RR = 6.0 for AMI and RR = 8.0 for heart failure).Recent studies reinforce the indirect protective effect of vaccination in preventing cardiovascular complications resulting from COVID-19.Discussion: The data corroborate the cardiovascular safety of COVID-19 vaccines, even in more vulnerable subgroups.Rare events, such as myocarditis associated with mRNA vaccines and post-adenoviral thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, have been described but did not impact the incidence of AMI or heart failure at the population level.Vaccination, therefore, presents a largely favorable benefit-risk balance, while infection remains a relevant factor for acute and chronic cardiovascular risk.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.395 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences→Same topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research→French-language works237,207→