Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia in the pediatric patients: A single‐center experience

Ventricular tachycardia ablation in children

INTRODUCTION

The ablation of ventricular tachycardia, including premature ventricular contractions, is an approved, albeit infrequent procedure in pediatric patients. Data are scarce regarding the outcomes of this procedure. The purpose of this study was to share a high-volume center experience and patient outcomes for catheter ablation of ventricular ectopy and ventricular tachycardia in pediatric population.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from the institutional data bank. Outcomes over time were evaluated, and procedural details were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 116 procedures were performed on 102 pediatric patients between July 2009 and May 2021 at the Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center in Tehran, Iran. Ablation was not performed in 4 procedures (3.4%) due to high-risk substrates. Of the remaining 112 ablations performed, 99 (88.4%) were successful. However, one patient died due to a coronary complication. There were no significant differences observed in early ablation results based on patients' age, sex, cardiac anatomy, or ablation substrates (P > 0.05). Follow-up records were available for 80 procedures, and 13 (16.3%) of those experienced recurrence. During long-term follow-up, none of the variables mentioned above were statistically different between patients with or without arrhythmia recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The overall success rate of pediatric ventricular arrhythmia ablation is favorable. We found no significant predictor for the procedural success rate concerning acute and late outcomes. Larger multicenter studies are needed to elucidate the predictors and outcomes of the procedure.

Understanding the scope of intracardiac echocardiography in catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmia

Over the last few decades, catheter ablation has emerged as the first-line treatment for ventricular arrhythmias. However, detailed knowledge of cardiac anatomy during the surgery remains the prerequisite for successful ablation. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is a unique imaging technique, which provides real-time visualization of cardiac structures, and is superior to other imaging modalities in terms of precise display of cardiac tissue characteristics as well as the orientation of anatomical landmarks. This article aimed to introduce the various advantages and limitations of ICE in the ablation of ventricular arrhythmias.

Approach to Wide Complex Tachycardia in Paediatric Patients

Wide complex tachycardia (WCT) is an infrequently encountered condition in paediatric patients and may be due to a variety of causes including supraventricular tachycardia with aberrant conduction, ventricular activation via an accessory pathway, ventricular pacing, or ventricular tachycardia. Immediate tachycardia termination is required in haemodynamically unstable patients. After stabilization or in those with haemodynamically tolerated WCT, a careful review of electrocardiographic tracings and diagnostic manoeuvres are essential to help elucidate the cause. Subacute and chronic management for WCT will depend on the underlying cause as well as features of the patient and the tachycardia presentation. This article will review the epidemiology, potential causes, and management of WCT in children. A detailed review of the pathophysiology, differential diagnosis, and diagnostic and treatment options is provided to enable the reader to develop a practical approach to managing this condition in young patients.

The First Evaluation of Remote Magnetic Navigation-Guided Pediatric Ventricular Arrhythmia Ablation

Catheter ablation (CA) is an important treatment option for ventricular arrhythmias (VA) in pediatric cardiology. Currently, various CA techniques are available, including remote magnetic navigation (RMN)-guided radiofrequency (RF) ablation. However, no studies evaluate RMN-guided ablative therapy outcomes in children with VA yet. This study aimed to compare procedural and long-term outcomes between RMN-guided and manual (MAN)-guided VA ablation in children. This single-center, retrospective study included all CA procedures for VA performed in children with or without structural heart disease from 2008 until 2020. Two study groups were defined by CA technique: RMN or MAN. Primary outcome was recurrence of VA. Baseline clinical, procedural and safety data were also evaluated. This study included 22 patients, who underwent 30 procedures, with a median age of 15 (IQR 14-17; range 1-17) years and a mean weight of 57 ± 20 kg. In total, 14 procedures were performed using RMN and 16 using MAN (22 first and 8 redo procedures). Regarding first procedures, recurrence rates were significantly lower in RMN compared to MAN (20% versus 67%, P = 0.029), at a mean follow-up of 5.2 ± 3.0 years. Moreover, fluoroscopy dosages were significantly lower in RMN compared to MAN [20 (IQR 14-54) versus 48 (IQR 38-62) mGy, P = 0.043]. In total, 20 patients (91%) were free of VA following their final ablation procedure. This is the first study to investigate the use of RMN in pediatric VA ablation. RMN showed improved outcomes compared to MAN, resulting in lower VA recurrence and reduced fluoroscopy exposure.

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.

Etiology is a predictor of recurrence after catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) are rare in pediatric patients, especially in absence of structural heart disease (SHD). Few data are available regarding the invasive VAs treatment with catheter ablation (CA) in pediatric patients and predictors of outcomes have not been fully investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the clinical presentation, procedural characteristics, and outcomes in pediatric patients undergoing CA for VAs.

METHODS

Eighty-one consecutive pediatric patients (58 male [72%], 15.5 ± 2.2 years) treated by CA for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular beats (PVBs) were retrospectively evaluated. Study endpoints were VAs recurrence and mortality for any cause.

RESULTS

Ninety-five procedures were performed in 81 patients, 52 (55%) PVBs and 43 (45%) VT ablations. During a follow-up of 35.0 months (interquartile range = 13.0-71.0), 14 patients (14.7%) had a VA recurrence: 11 (33.3%) patients treated with CA for VT and 3 (6.2%) patients treated for PVBs (p < .001). One patient (1%) died 26 months after the procedure during an electrical storm. Patients with SHD had higher VAs recurrence rate, as compared with idiopathic VAs (pairwise log-rank p < .001). Patients treated with CA for VT had higher VA recurrence rate, as compared with PVB patients (pairwise log-rank p = .002). At Cox multivariate analysis only SHD was an independent predictor of VAs recurrence (hazard ratio = 5.56, 95% confidence interval = 2.68-11.54, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

CA of VAs is effective and safe in a pediatric population. CA of idiopathic and fascicular VAs are associated with lower recurrence rate, than VAs in the setting of SHD.