Primary prevention with the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in high-risk long-QT syndrome patients

Assessment of Sudden Cardiac Death Risk in Pediatric Primary Electrical Disorders: A Comprehensive Overview

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) in children is a devastating event, often linked to primary electrical diseases (PED) of the heart. PEDs, often referred to as channelopathies, are a group of genetic disorders that disrupt the normal ion channel function in cardiac cells, leading to arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. This paper investigates the unique challenges of risk assessment and stratification for channelopathy-related SCD in pediatric patients-Brugada syndrome, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, idiopathic ventricular fibrillation, long QT syndrome, Anderson-Tawil syndrome, short QT syndrome, and early repolarization syndrome. We explore the intricate interplay of genetic, clinical, and electrophysiological factors that contribute to the complex nature of these conditions. Recognizing the significance of early identification and tailored management, this paper underscores the need for a comprehensive risk stratification approach specifically designed for pediatric populations. By integrating genetic testing, family history, and advanced electrophysiological evaluation, clinicians can enhance their ability to identify children at the highest risk for SCD, ultimately paving the way for more effective preventive strategies and improved outcomes in this vulnerable patient group.

Initiation of ventricular arrhythmia in the acquired long QT syndrome

AIMS

Long QT syndrome (LQTS) carries a risk of life-threatening polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (Torsades de Pointes, TdP) and is a major cause of premature sudden cardiac death. TdP is induced by R-on-T premature ventricular complexes (PVCs), thought to be generated by cellular early-afterdepolarisations (EADs). However, EADs in tissue require cellular synchronisation, and their role in TdP induction remains unclear. We aimed to determine the mechanism of TdP induction in rabbit hearts with acquired LQTS (aLQTS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Optical mapping of action potentials (APs) and intracellular Ca2+ was performed in Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts (n = 17). TdP induced by R-on-T PVCs was observed during aLQTS (50% K+/Mg++ & E4031) conditions in all hearts (P < 0.0001 vs. control). Islands of AP prolongation bounded by steep voltage gradients (VGs) were consistently observed before arrhythmia and peak VGs were more closely related to the PVC upstroke than EADs, both temporally (7 ± 5 ms vs. 44 ± 27 ms, P < 0.0001) and spatially (1.0 ± 0.7 vs. 3.6 ± 0.9 mm, P < 0.0001). PVCs were initiated at estimated voltages of ∼ -40 mV and had upstroke dF/dtmax and Vm-Ca2+ dynamics compatible with ICaL activation. Computational simulations demonstrated that PVCs could arise directly from VGs, through electrotonic triggering of ICaL. In experiments and the model, sub-maximal L-type Ca2+ channel (LTCC) block (200 nM nifedipine and 90% gCaL, respectively) abolished both PVCs and TdP in the continued presence of aLQTS.

CONCLUSION

These data demonstrate that ICaL activation at sites displaying steep VGs generates the PVCs which induce TdP, providing a mechanism and rationale for LTCC blockers as a novel therapeutic approach in LQTS.

Assessment of absolute risk of life-threatening cardiac events in long QT syndrome patients

Background

Risk stratification in long QT syndrome (LQTS) patients is important for optimizing patient care and informing clinical decision making. We developed a risk prediction algorithm with prediction of 5-year absolute risk of the first life-threatening arrhythmic event [defined as aborted cardiac arrest, sudden cardiac death, or appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shock] in LQTS patients, accounting for individual risk factors and their changes over time.

Methods

Rochester-based LQTS Registry included the phenotypic cohort consisting of 1,509 LQTS patients with a QTc ≥ 470 ms, and the genotypic cohort including 1,288 patients with single LQT1, LQT2, or LQT3 mutation. We developed two separate risk prediction models which included pre-specified time-dependent covariates of beta-blocker use, syncope (never, syncope while off beta blockers, and syncope while on beta blockers), and sex by age < and ≥13 years, baseline QTc, and genotype (for the genotypic cohort only). Follow-up started from enrollment in the registry and was censored at patients’ 50s birthday, date of death due to reasons other than sudden cardiac death, or last contact, whichever occurred first. The predictive models were externally validated in an independent cohort of 1,481 LQTS patients from Pavia, Italy.

Results

In Rochester dataset, there were 77 endpoints in the phenotypic cohort during a median follow-up of 9.0 years, and 47 endpoints in the genotypic cohort during a median follow-up of 9.8 years. The time-dependent extension of Harrell’s generalized C-statistics for the phenotypic model and genotypic model were 0.784 (95% CI: 0.740–0.827) and 0.785 (95% CI: 0.721–0.849), respectively, in the Rochester cohort. The C-statistics obtained from external validation in the Pavia cohort were 0.700 (95% CI: 0.610–0.790) and 0.711 (95% CI: 0.631–0.792) for the two models, respectively. Based on the above models, an online risk calculator estimating a 5-year risk of life-threatening arrhythmic events was developed.

Conclusion

This study developed two risk prediction algorithms for phenotype and genotype positive LQTS patients separately. The estimated 5-year absolute risk can be used to quantify a LQTS patient’s risk of developing life-threatening arrhythmic events and thus assisting in clinical decision making regarding prophylactic ICD therapy.

Congenital Long QT Syndrome

Congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) encompasses a group of heritable conditions that are associated with cardiac repolarization dysfunction. Since its initial description in 1957, our understanding of LQTS has increased dramatically. The prevalence of LQTS is estimated to be ∼1:2,000, with a slight female predominance. The diagnosis of LQTS is based on clinical, electrocardiogram, and genetic factors. Risk stratification of patients with LQTS aims to identify those who are at increased risk of cardiac arrest or sudden cardiac death. Factors including age, sex, QTc interval, and genetic background all contribute to current risk stratification paradigms. The management of LQTS involves conservative measures such as the avoidance of QT-prolonging drugs, pharmacologic measures with nonselective β-blockers, and interventional approaches such as device therapy or left cardiac sympathetic denervation. In general, most forms of exercise are considered safe in adequately treated patients, and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy is reserved for those at the highest risk. This review summarizes our current understanding of LQTS and provides clinicians with a practical approach to diagnosis and management.

ICD harm and benefit: risk scores applied to the Swedish ICD-treated LQTS population

Objectives. The use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in long QT syndrome (LQTS) patients is essential in high-risk patients. However, it is sometimes used in patients without high-risk profiles for whom the expected benefit may be lower than the risk of ICD harm. Here, we evaluated ICD benefit and harm by assessing risk according to risk scores and pre-ICD clinical characteristics. Design. We studied 109 Swedish LQTS patients drawn from the Swedish ICD and Pacemaker Registry with data collected from medical records. In addition to clinical characteristics, we used two risk scores to assess pre-ICD risk, and evaluated ICD benefit and harm. Results. Twenty percent of all patients received ≥1 appropriate shock with a first appropriate shock incidence rate of 4.3 per 100 person-years. A long QTc (≥550 ms) and double mutations were significantly associated with appropriate shock. Low risk scores among patients without pre-ICD aborted cardiac arrest were not significantly associated with low risk of first appropriate shock. The incidence rates of a first inappropriate shock and first complication were 3.0 and 7.6 per 100 person-years, respectively. Conclusion. Our findings on ICD harm emphasize the importance of careful individual pre-ICD consideration. When we applied two risk scores to patients without pre-ICD aborted cardiac arrest, we could not validate their ability to identify patients with low risk of appropriate shocks and patients who were assessed as having a low risk still received appropriate shocks. This further supports the complexity of risk stratification and the difficulty of using risk scores.

Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators to Reduce Mortality in Patients With Long QT Syndrome

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) on reducing mortality has not been well studied in patients with long QT syndrome (LQTS).

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the survival benefits of ICDs in the overall LQTS population and in subgroups defined by ICD indications.

METHODS

This study included 3,035 patients (597 with ICD) from the Rochester LQTS Registry with a QTc ≥470 milliseconds or confirmed LQTS mutation. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, the risk of all-cause mortality, all-cause mortality before age 50 years, and sudden cardiac death (SCD) were estimated as functions of time-dependent ICD therapy. Indication subgroups examined included patients with: 1) nonfatal cardiac arrest; 2) syncope while on beta-blockers; and 3) a QTc ≥500 milliseconds and syncope while off beta-blockers.

RESULTS

During the 118,837 person-years of follow-up, 389 patients died (137 before age 50 years, and 116 experienced SCD). In the entire population, patients with ICDs had a lower risk of death (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.34-0.86), death before age 50 years (HR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.14-0.61), and SCD (HR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.09-0.55) than patients without ICDs did. Patients with ICDs also had a lower risk of mortality among the 3 indication subgroups (HR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.06-0.34; HR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.10-0.72; and HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.19-0.96, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

ICD therapy was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, all-cause mortality before age 50 years, and SCD in the LQTS population, as wells as with a lower risk of all-cause mortality in indication subgroups. This study provides evidence supporting ICD implantation in patients with high-risk LQTS.

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.

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.

Management of Congenital Long-QT Syndrome: Commentary From the Experts

While published guidelines are useful in the care of patients with long-QT syndrome, it can be difficult to decide how to apply the guidelines to individual patients, particularly those with intermediate risk. We explored the diversity of opinion among 24 clinicians with expertise in long-QT syndrome. Experts from various regions and institutions were presented with 4 challenging clinical scenarios and asked to provide commentary emphasizing why they would make their treatment recommendations. All 24 authors were asked to vote on case-specific questions so as to demonstrate the degree of consensus or divergence of opinion. Of 24 authors, 23 voted and 1 abstained. Details of voting results with commentary are presented. There was consensus on several key points, particularly on the importance of the diagnostic evaluation and of β-blocker use. There was diversity of opinion about the appropriate use of other therapeutic measures in intermediate-risk individuals. Significant gaps in knowledge were identified.

[Congenital long QT syndrome]

Congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) represents a group of heart diseases of genetic origin characterized by prolongation of the QT interval and an abnormal T wave on the electrocardiogram (ECG). They can have a dominant or recessive expression, the latter associated with sensorineural deafness. In both cases, its clinical presentation is associated with recurrent syncope and sudden death as a consequence of ventricular tachycardia, specifically Torsades de Pointes. Currently they are classified according to the specific genetic defect, being able to compromise around 16 genes and almost 2000 mutations. It should be suspected in individuals with related symptoms, electrocardiographic findings, and family history. Management is based on the reduction or elimination of symptoms, and concomitantly the prevention of sudden death (SD), in those children with congenital deafness, the management requires the application of the otolaryngologist specialist's own measures. The cardiovascular management implies the modification of lifestyles, mainly the prohibition of competitive sports, including swimming, avoiding exposure to loud sounds or triggers. The medications used include beta-blockers, and more rarely flecainide, ranozaline, and verapamil; invasive management consists of the implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator or even left sympathetic denervation, each with its own risks and benefits. In any of the cases, we must avoid the circumstances that increase the QT interval, as well as carry out the appropriate analysis of the benefits and risks of each possible invasive measure.

Outcome by Sex in Patients With Long QT Syndrome With an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

Background

Sex differences in outcome have been reported in patients with congenital long QT syndrome. We aimed to report on the incidence of time‐dependent life‐threatening events in male and female patients with long QT syndrome with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

Methods and Results

A total of 60 patients with long QT syndrome received an ICD for primary or secondary prevention indications. Life‐threatening events were evaluated from the date of ICD implant and included ICD shocks for ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, or death. ICDs were implanted in 219 women (mean age 38±13 years), 46 girls (12±5 years), 55 men (43±17 years), and 40 boys (11±4 years). Mean follow‐up post‐ICD implantation was 14±6 years for females and 12±6 years for males. At 15 years of follow‐up, the cumulative probability of life‐threatening events was 27% in females and 34% in males (log‐rank P=0.26 for the overall difference). In the multivariable Cox model, sex was not associated with significant differences in risk first appropriate ICD shock (hazard ratio, 0.83 female versus male; 95% CI, 0.52–1.34; P=0.47). Results were similar when stratified by age and by genotype: long QT syndrome type 1 (LQT1), long QT syndrome type 2 (LQT2), and long QT syndrome type 3 (LQT3). Incidence of inappropriate ICD shocks was higher in males versus females (4.2 versus 2.7 episodes per 100 patient‐years; P=0.018), predominantly attributed to atrial fibrillation. The first shock did not terminate ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation in 48% of females and 62% of males (P=0.25).

Conclusions

In patients with long QT syndrome with an ICD, the risk and rate of life‐threatening events did not significantly differ between males and females regardless of ICD indications or genotype. In a substantial proportion of patients with long QT syndrome, first shock did not terminate ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation.