ICD Outcome in Pediatric Cardiomyopathies

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.

Inherited Arrhythmias in the Pediatric Population: An Updated Overview

Pediatric cardiomyopathies (CMs) and electrical diseases constitute a heterogeneous spectrum of disorders distinguished by structural and electrical abnormalities in the heart muscle, attributed to a genetic variant. They rank among the main causes of morbidity and mortality in the pediatric population, with an annual incidence of 1.1-1.5 per 100,000 in children under the age of 18. The most common conditions are dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Despite great enthusiasm for research in this field, studies in this population are still limited, and the management and treatment often follow adult recommendations, which have significantly more data on treatment benefits. Although adult and pediatric cardiac diseases share similar morphological and clinical manifestations, their outcomes significantly differ. This review summarizes the latest evidence on genetics, clinical characteristics, management, and updated outcomes of primary pediatric CMs and electrical diseases, including DCM, HCM, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), Brugada syndrome (BrS), catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT), long QT syndrome (LQTS), and short QT syndrome (SQTS).

Analysis of risk stratification and prevention of sudden death in pediatric patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Dilemmas and clarity

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) has been considered the most common cause of sudden death (SD) in the young. However, introduction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in HCM has proved highly effective and the mainstay of preventing SD in children, adolescents, and adults by terminating malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Nevertheless, ICD decision making is generally regarded as more difficult in pediatrics, and the strategy for selecting ICD patients from this population remains without consensus. Prospective studies in HCM children and adolescents have shown the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology traditional major risk marker strategy to be reliable with >90% sensitivity in selecting patients for SD prevention. International data in >2000 young HCM patients assembled over 20 years who were stratified by major risk markers showed ICDs effectively prevented SD in 20%. Alternatively, novel quantitative risk scoring initiatives provide 5-year risk estimates that are potentially useful as adjunctive tools to facilitate discussion of prophylactic ICD risks vs benefit but are as yet unsupported by prospective outcome studies. Risk scoring strategies are characterized by reasonable discriminatory statistical power (C-statistic 0.69-0.76) for identifying patients with SD events but with relatively low sensitivity, albeit with specificity comparable with the risk marker strategy. While some reticence for obligating healthy-appearing young patients to lifelong device implants is understandable, underutilization of the ICD in high-risk children and adolescents can represent a lost opportunity for fulfilling the long-standing aspiration of SD prevention. This review provides a critical assessment of the current strengths and weaknesses of SD risk stratification strategies in young HCM patients in an effort to clarify clinical decision making in this challenging subpopulation.

Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children and young adults: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has been demonstrated to successfully prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) in children and young adults. A wide range of device-related complications/malfunctions have been described, which depend on the intrinsic design of the defibrillation system (transvenous-implantable cardioverter defibrillator [TV-ICD] vs. subcutaneous-implantable cardioverter defibrillator [S-ICD]).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the device-related complications and inappropriate shocks with TV-ICD versus S-ICD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Electronic databases were queried for studies focusing on the prevention of SCD in children and young adults with TV-ICD or S-ICD. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as odds ratio (OR) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary endpoint was a composite of any device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. We identified a total of five studies including 236 patients (Group S-ICD: 76 patients; Group TV-ICD: 160 patients) with a mean follow-up time of 54.2 ± 24.9 months. S-ICD implantation contributed to a significant reduction in the risk of the primary endpoint of any device-related complications and inappropriate shocks (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05-0.73; p = .02). S-ICD was also associated with a significantly lower incidence of inappropriate shocks (OR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.11-0.74; p = .01) and lead-related complications (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05-0.66; p = .01). A trend toward a higher risk of pocket complications (OR: 5.91; 95% CI: 0.98-35.63; p = .05) was recorded in patients with S-ICD.

CONCLUSION

Children and young adults undergoing S-ICD implantation may have a lower risk of a composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks, compared to TV-ICD patients.