Search

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

Background: Children with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) are at risk for sudden death, and a risk stratification tool does not exist., Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether proband status, age at symptom onset, and/or sex are independent predictors of cardiac events., Methods: A multicenter, ambispective, cohort of pediatric CPVT patients was categorized by sex, proband status, and age at symptom onset (D1: first decade of life [symptom onset <10 years] or D2: second decade of life [symptom onset 10-18 years, inclusive]). Demographics, therapy, genetics, and outcomes were compared between groups., Results: A total of 133 patients were included and stratified into 58 D1 and 75 D2 patients (68 female and 65 male; 106 probands and 27 relatives). Localization of RYR2 variants to hotspots differed based on proband status and age at symptom onset. The cardiac event rate was 33% (n = 44/133), inclusive of a 3% (n = 4/133) mortality rate, over a median of 6 years (interquartile range 3-11) after time of symptom onset. Proband status, rather than age at of symptom onset or sex, was an independent predictor of time to first cardiac event (P = .008; hazard ratio = 4.4). The 5-, 10- and 15-year event-free survival rates for probands were 77%, 56%, and 46%, respectively, and for relatives were 96%, 91%, and 86%, respectively. Event risk after diagnosis was 48% (32/67) in patients on β-blocker or flecainide alone vs 10% (5/48) in patients on β-blocker plus flecainide and/or left cardiac sympathetic denervation (P <.001)., Conclusion: Proband status, but not age at symptom onset or male sex, independently predicted an earlier onset of cardiac events. A larger sample size would enable a comprehensive investigation of other risk factors., (Copyright © 2021 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) is an uncommon inherited arrhythmia disorder characterized by adrenergically evoked ventricular arrhythmias. Mutations in the cardiac calcium release channel/ryanodine receptor gene (RYR2) are identified in the majority of patients with CPVT. RyR2 is also the major RyR isoform expressed in the brain., Objective: The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of intellectual disability (ID) and other neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) in RYR2-associated CPVT (CPVT1) and to study the characteristics of these patients., Methods: We reviewed the medical records of all CPVT1 patients from 12 international centers and analyzed the characteristics of all CPVT1 patients with concomitant NDDs. We functionally characterized the mutations to assess their response to caffeine activation. We did not correct for potential confounders., Results: Among 421 CPVT1 patients, we identified 34 patients with ID (8%; 95% confidence interval 6%-11%). Median age at diagnosis was 9.3 years (interquartile range 7.0-14.5). Parents for 24 of 34 patients were available for genetic testing, and 13 of 24 (54%) had a de novo mutation. Severity of ID ranged from mild to severe and was accompanied by other NDDs in 9 patients (26%). Functionally, the ID-associated mutations showed a markedly enhanced response of RyR2 to activation by caffeine. Seventeen patients (50%) also had supraventricular arrhythmias. During median follow-up of 8.4 years (interquartile range 1.8-12.4), 15 patients (45%) experienced an arrhythmic event despite adequate therapy., Conclusion: Our study indicates that ID is more prevalent among CPVT1 patients (8%) than in the general population (1%-3%). This subgroup of CPVT1 patients reveals a malignant cardiac phenotype with marked supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy for the management of catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) in young patients is not known. ICD discharges are not always effective and inappropriate discharges are common, both resulting in morbidity and mortality., Methods and Results: This is a multicenter, retrospective review of young patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic VT and ICDs from 5 centers. ICD discharges were evaluated to determine arrhythmia mechanism, appropriateness, efficacy of therapy, and complications. A total of 24 patients were included. Median (interquartile range) ages at onset of catecholaminergic polymorphic VT symptoms and ICD implant were 10.6 (5.0-13.8) years and 13.7 (10.7-16.3) years, respectively. Fourteen patients received 140 shocks. Ten patients (42%) experienced 75 appropriate shocks and 11 patients (46%) received 65 inappropriate shocks. On actuarial analysis, freedom from appropriate shock at 1 year after ICD implant was 75%. Of appropriate shocks, only 43 (57%) demonstrated successful primary termination. All successful appropriate ICD discharges were for ventricular fibrillation. No episodes of polymorphic VT or bidirectional VT demonstrated successful primary termination. The adjusted mean (95% confidence interval) cycle length of successful discharges was significantly shorter than unsuccessful discharges (168 [152-184] ms versus 245 [229-262] ms; adjusted P=0.002). Electrical storm occurred in 29% (4/14) and induction of more malignant ventricular arrhythmias in 36% (5/14). There were no deaths., Conclusions: ICD efficacy in catecholaminergic polymorphic VT depends on arrhythmia mechanism. Episodes of ventricular fibrillation were uniformly successfully treated, whereas polymorphic and bidirectional VT did not demonstrate successful primary termination. Inappropriate shocks, electrical storm, and ICD complications were common.