Pattern of recovery for transient complete heart block after open heart surgery for congenital heart disease: duration alone predicts risk of late complete heart block

Postoperative Atrioventricular Block in Pediatric Patients: Impact of Congenital Cardiac Malformations and Medications

Postoperative atrioventricular block may occur after pediatric cardiac surgery. A small proportion of those who develop atrioventricular block will require pacemaker placement. The primary aim of this study was to determine factors associated with postoperative atrioventricular block. Secondary aims included determining factors associated with pacemaker placement in those with atrioventricular block. Data from the PHIS data were utilized to identify patients under 18 years of age who underwent cardiac surgery. Those who did and did not develop atrioventricular block. Univariable analyses and regression analyses were conducted to determine factors associated with postoperative atrioventricular block. Similar analyses were conducted to determine factors associated with pacemaker placement in those with atrioventricular block. A total of 43,716 admissions were identified. Of these, 2093 (5%) developed atrioventricular block and 480 (1% of total admissions) underwent pacemaker placement. Approximately 70% of those with atrioventricular block received steroids but this was not associated with a decrease in pacemaker placement. Risk factors (congenital malformations of the heart, comorbidities, medications) associated with increased risk of atrioventricular block and pacemaker placement were identified. Postoperative atrioventricular block occurred in 5% of pediatric admissions for cardiac surgery. Of these admissions with postoperative atrioventricular block, 23% required pacemaker placement. Isoproterenol and steroids were not associated with a reduction in the likelihood of pacemaker placement.

Pacing in Pediatric Patients with Postoperative Atrioventricular Block

Surgery for congenital heart disease may compromise atrioventricular (AV) nodal conduction, potentially resulting in postoperative AV block. In the majority of cases, AV nodal function recovers during the early postoperative period and may only require short-term pacing support, typically provided via temporary epicardial wires. Permanent pacing is indicated when the postoperative AV block persists for more than 7 to 10 days due to the risk of mortality if a pacemaker is not implanted. Although there is a subset of patients who may have late recovery of AV nodal function, those with continued postoperative AV block will need lifelong pacing therapy.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

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.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients: Executive summary

Guidelines for the implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have evolved since publication of the initial ACC/AHA pacemaker guidelines in 1984 [1]. CIEDs have evolved to include novel forms of cardiac pacing, the development of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and the introduction of devices for long term monitoring of heart rhythm and other physiologic parameters. In view of the increasing complexity of both devices and patients, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. In 2018, the ACC/AHA/HRS published Guidelines on the Evaluation and Management of Patients with Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay [2], which were specific recommendations for patients >18 years of age. This age-specific threshold was established in view of the differing indications for CIEDs in young patients as well as size-specific technology factors. Therefore, the following document was developed to update and further delineate indications for the use and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, with recognition that there is often overlap in the care of patents between 18 and 21 years of age. This document is an abbreviated expert consensus statement (ECS) intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease/diagnostic categories. This document will also provide guidance regarding the management of lead systems and follow-up evaluation for pediatric patients with CIEDs. The recommendations are presented in an abbreviated modular format, with each section including the complete table of recommendations along with a brief synopsis of supportive text and select references to provide some context for the recommendations. This document is not intended to provide an exhaustive discussion of the basis for each of the recommendations, which are further addressed in the comprehensive PACES-CIED document [3], with further data easily accessible in electronic searches or textbooks.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients: Developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC) Endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

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.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

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.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients

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 consenus 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 follow-up in pediatric patients.

Bradyarrhythmias in Congenital Heart Disease

Bradyarrhythmias in adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) comprise a complex group of arrhythmia disorders with congenital and acquired origins, highly variable long-term sequelae, and complicated treatment options. They can develop across the spectrum of CHD defects and can be encountered at all ages. Although permanent pacing is effective in treating bradyarrhythmias, it is associated with many complications and morbidity, where it is often used early in life. This section discusses the incidence and prevalence of bradyarrhythmias in the CHD population, their timing of occurrence with respect to specific disease entities and interventions, and their short- and long-term clinical sequelae.

Genotypic and phenotypic predictors of complete heart block and recovery of conduction after surgical repair of congenital heart disease

BACKGROUND

Complete heart block (CHB) is a major complication that occurs after congenital heart surgery. We hypothesized that genetic and clinical factors are associated with the development of postoperative CHB and recovery of atrioventricular (AV) conduction.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of CHB and recovery after congenital heart surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing congenital heart surgery at our institution from September 2007 through June 2015 were prospectively enrolled in a parent study of postoperative arrhythmias. Patients with onset of CHB within 48 hours postoperatively were included in the study. Daily rhythm assessment was performed until demonstration of 1:1 conduction or pacemaker implantation.

RESULTS

Of 1199 subjects enrolled, 56 (4.7%) developed postoperative CHB. In multivariate analysis, preoperative digoxin exposure (odds ratio [OR] 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-4.4), aortic cross-clamp time (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.11), ventricular septal defect closure (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1), and a common polymorphism in the gene encoding connexin-40 (GJA5 rs10465885 TT genotype; OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.8) were independently associated with postoperative CHB. Junctional acceleration (JA) (OR 4.0, 95% CI 1.1-15.1) and intermittent conduction noted during complete AV block (OR 9.1, 95% CI 1.0-80) were independently associated with 1:1 AV conduction recovery. Use of a multivariate model including both JA and intermittent conduction demonstrated good discrimination with a positive predictive value of 86% (95% CI 67%-96%) in predicting 1:1 conduction recovery.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative factors, including a missense polymorphism in GJA5, are independently associated with increased risk for CHB. JA and intermittent conduction may prove useful in predicting recovery of AV conduction among patients with CHB after congenital heart surgery.

Arrhythmias in Cardiac Critical Care

OBJECTIVES

Here, we characterize the frequency, mechanisms, clinical impact, and potential treatment options for several arrhythmias commonly encountered in pediatric cardiac critical care.

DATA SOURCE

MEDLINE and PubMed.

CONCLUSIONS

Arrhythmias among children in the cardiac critical care setting are common and clinically important, associated independently with prolonged mechanical ventilation, critical care unit stay, and an increase in mortality. The precise characterization of an arrhythmia may provide clues as to an underlying mechanism as well as serve to guide treatment. Arrhythmia therapy, pharmacologic or otherwise, is directed toward addressing the underlying mechanism, and as such may be applicable to the treatment of more than one specific rhythm disturbance. Decisions concerning therapy must call into consideration an arrhythmia's underlying etiology, mechanism, and associated hemodynamic embarrassment, along with the potential for adverse effects of treatment.

A Review of Surgical Atrioventricular Block with Emphasis in Patients with Single Ventricle Physiology

We perceived an increased incidence of surgical atrioventricular (AV) block in patients with single ventricle physiology undergoing two ventricle rehabilitation for hypoplastic left heart syndrome compared to the overall incidence of surgical AV block for our institution. Retrospective investigation of our center's data revealed a statistically significant increase in the incidence of surgical AV block in the single ventricle population and two ventricle rehabilitation population compared to the two ventricle population. Here we review the literature with respect to historic definitions, incidence, risk factors, pre- and post-op management, current indications for pacemaker placement and added cost and comorbidity associated with surgical AV block. We then offer possible strategies for decreasing the incidence of surgical AV block within both the single and two ventricle populations.