Miniaturized Implantable Loop Recorder in Small Patients: An Effective Approach to the Evaluation of Subjects at Risk of Sudden Death

New Guidelines of Pediatric Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: What Is Changing in Clinical Practice?

Guidelines are important tools to guide the diagnosis and treatment of patients to improve the decision-making process of health professionals. They are periodically updated according to new evidence. Four new Guidelines in 2021, 2022 and 2023 referred to pediatric pacing and defibrillation. There are some relevant changes in permanent pacing. In patients with atrioventricular block, the heart rate limit in which pacemaker implantation is recommended was decreased to reduce too-early device implantation. However, it was underlined that the heart rate criterion is not absolute, as signs or symptoms of hemodynamically not tolerated bradycardia may even occur at higher rates. In sinus node dysfunction, symptomatic bradycardia is the most relevant recommendation for pacing. Physiological pacing is increasingly used and recommended when the amount of ventricular pacing is presumed to be high. New recommendations suggest that loop recorders may guide the management of inherited arrhythmia syndromes and may be useful for severe but not frequent palpitations. Regarding defibrillator implantation, the main changes are in primary prevention recommendations. In hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, pediatric risk calculators have been included in the Guidelines. In dilated cardiomyopathy, due to the rarity of sudden cardiac death in pediatric age, low ejection fraction criteria were demoted to class II. In long QT syndrome, new criteria included severely prolonged QTc with different limits according to genotype, and some specific mutations. In arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, hemodynamically tolerated ventricular tachycardia and arrhythmic syncope were downgraded to class II recommendation. In conclusion, these new Guidelines aim to assess all aspects of cardiac implantable electronic devices and improve treatment strategies.

The Evolving Role of Insertable Cardiac Monitors in Patients with Congenital Heart Disease

Insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) have been used more frequently and in a wider variety of circumstances in recent years. ICMs are used for symptom-rhythm correlation when patients have potentially arrhythmogenic syncope and for less traditional reasons such as rhythm surveillance in patients with genetic arrhythmia syndromes or other diseases with high arrhythmia risk. ICMs have good diagnostic yield in pediatric patients and in adults with congenital heart disease and have a low rate of complications. Implantation techniques should take patient-specific factors into account to optimize diagnostic yield and minimize risk.

Impact of Device Miniaturization on Insertable Cardiac Monitor Use in the Pediatric Population: An Analysis of the MarketScan Commercial and Medicaid Databases

Background

Insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) are effective in the detection of paroxysmal arrhythmias. In 2014, the first miniaturized ICM was introduced with a less invasive implant technique. The impact of this technology on ICM use in pediatric patients has not been evaluated. We hypothesized an increase in annual pediatric ICM implants starting in 2014 attributable to device miniaturization.

Methods and Results

A retrospective observational study was conducted using administrative claims from MarketScan Medicaid and commercial insurance claims databases. Use of ICM between January 2013 and December 2018 was measured (normalized to the total enrolled population ≤18 years) and compared with balancing measures (Holter ambulatory monitors, cardiac event monitors, encounters with syncope diagnosis, implantation of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator/pacemaker). Secondary analyses included evaluations of subsequent interventions and complications. The study cohort included 33 532 185 individual subjects, of which 769 (0.002%) underwent ICM implantation. Subjects who underwent ICM implantation were 52% male sex, with a median age of 16 years (interquartile range, 10–17 years). A history of syncope was present in 71%, palpitations in 43%, and congenital heart disease in 28%. Following release of the miniaturized ICM, use of ICMs increased from 5 procedures per million enrollees in 2013 to 11 per million between 2015 and 2018 (P<0.001), while balancing measures remained static. Of 394 subjects with ≥1 year of follow‐up after implantation, interventions included catheter ablation in 24 (6%), pacemaker implantation in 15 (4%), and implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implantation in 7 (2%).

Conclusions

Introduction of the miniaturized ICM was followed by a rapid increase in pediatric use. The effects on outcomes and value deserve further attention.

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.

Clinical characteristics and risk of arrhythmic events in patients younger than 12 years diagnosed with Brugada syndrome

BACKGROUND

Brugada syndrome (BrS) is an inheritable disease with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. Although several score systems have been proposed, the management of children with BrS has been inconsistently described.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify the characteristics, outcome, and risk factors associated with cardiovascular and arrhythmic events (AEs) in children younger than 12 years with BrS.

METHODS

In this single-center case series, all children with spontaneous or drug/fever-induced type 1 Brugada electrocardiographic (ECG) pattern and younger than 12 years at the time of diagnosis were enrolled.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients younger than 12 years at the time of diagnosis were included. The median follow-up was 3.97 years (interquartile range 2-12 years). In terms of first-degree atrioventricular block, premature beats, nonmalignant AEs, malignant AEs, and episodes of syncope, no significant differences were observed either between patients with spontaneous and drug/fever-induced type 1 Brugada ECG pattern or between female and male patients (except a significant difference between female and male patients for first-degree atrioventricular block). A higher incidence of malignant AEs was observed in patients with syncope (3 of 8 [37.5%] vs 0 of 35 [0%]; P = .005) than in patients without syncope. SCN5A mutations were associated with a higher occurrence of malignant AEs (3 of 14 [21.4%] vs 0 of 25 [0%]; P = .04) compared with no SCN5A mutations.

CONCLUSION

A spontaneous type 1 Brugada ECG pattern is not associated with a higher incidence of syncope, first-degree atrioventricular block, premature beats, nonmalignant AEs, and malignant AEs than the drug/fever-induced type 1 Brugada ECG pattern. Syncope events are correlated with an increased incidence of malignant AEs. Moreover, SCN5A mutations are associated with a higher occurrence of malignant AEs.

2020 APHRS/HRS expert consensus statement on the investigation of decedents with sudden unexplained death and patients with sudden cardiac arrest, and of their families

This international multidisciplinary document intends to provide clinicians with evidence-based practical patient-centered recommendations for evaluating patients and decedents with (aborted) sudden cardiac arrest and their families. The document includes a framework for the investigation of the family allowing steps to be taken, should an inherited condition be found, to minimize further events in affected relatives. Integral to the process is counseling of the patients and families, not only because of the emotionally charged subject, but because finding (or not finding) the cause of the arrest may influence management of family members. The formation of multidisciplinary teams is essential to provide a complete service to the patients and their families, and the varied expertise of the writing committee was formulated to reflect this need. 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. The recommendations were opened for public comment and reviewed by the relevant scientific and clinical document committees of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS); the document underwent external review and endorsement by the partner and collaborating societies. While the recommendations are for optimal care, it is recognized that not all resources will be available to all clinicians. Nevertheless, this document articulates the evaluation that the clinician should aspire to provide for patients with sudden cardiac arrest, decedents with sudden unexplained death, and their families.

2020 APHRS/HRS expert consensus statement on the investigation of decedents with sudden unexplained death and patients with sudden cardiac arrest, and of their families

This international multidisciplinary document intends to provide clinicians with evidence-based practical patient-centered recommendations for evaluating patients and decedents with (aborted) sudden cardiac arrest and their families. The document includes a framework for the investigation of the family allowing steps to be taken, should an inherited condition be found, to minimize further events in affected relatives. Integral to the process is counseling of the patients and families, not only because of the emotionally charged subject, but because finding (or not finding) the cause of the arrest may influence management of family members. The formation of multidisciplinary teams is essential to provide a complete service to the patients and their families, and the varied expertise of the writing committee was formulated to reflect this need. 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. The recommendations were opened for public comment and reviewed by the relevant scientific and clinical document committees of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS); the document underwent external review and endorsement by the partner and collaborating societies. While the recommendations are for optimal care, it is recognized that not all resources will be available to all clinicians. Nevertheless, this document articulates the evaluation that the clinician should aspire to provide for patients with sudden cardiac arrest, decedents with sudden unexplained death, and their families.