Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Thromboembolic events related to invasive electrophysiology studies, while rare, can have devastating consequences. Use of systemic anticoagulation for a pediatric or adult-congenital invasive electrophysiology study is recommended, however there is no established standard of practice in this population. OBJECTIVE:To report on procedural practices for thromboembolism prophylaxis during invasive electrophysiology studies for pediatric patients and adults with congenital heart disease. METHODS:An anonymous web-based survey was sent to the members of the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society. The survey focused on pre-procedural, intra-procedural, and post-procedural thromboembolism prophylaxis practices during invasive electrophysiology studies. Significant practice variation was defined as <90% concordance among respondents. RESULTS:Survey was completed by 73 members; 52 (71%) practicing in the United States, 65 (89%) practicing in an academic institution, and 14 (19%) in an institution that performs more than 200 invasive electrophysiology procedures annually. Responses showed significant variation in practice. Prior to an invasive electrophysiology procedure, 25% discontinue aspirin while 47% discontinue anticoagulants. Heparin is given for all procedures by 32%. When heparin is administered, the first dose is given by 32% after sheaths are placed, 42% after crossing into the systemic atrium, and 26% just prior to systemic-side ablation. Most target an activated clotting time between 200-300 seconds. Post systemic-side ablation, 58% do not initiate a heparin infusion. Post-procedural oral agents were initiated on day of procedure by 34% of respondents and on post-procedure day 1 by 53%. If treating with aspirin, 74% use low-dose (3-5 mg/kg or 81 mg daily), and 68% treat for 4-6 weeks. CONCLUSION:There is significant variation in thromboembolism prophylaxis for invasive EP studies among pediatric and congenital electrophysiologists. Further studies are needed to optimize the management of thromboembolism prophylaxis in this population.

Background: Thromboembolic events related to invasive electrophysiology studies, while rare, can have devastating consequences. Use of systemic anticoagulation for a pediatric or adult-congenital invasive electrophysiology study is recommended, however there is no established standard of practice in this population. Objective: To report on procedural practices for thromboembolism prophylaxis during invasive electrophysiology studies for pediatric patients and adults with congenital heart disease. Methods: An anonymous web-based survey was sent to the members of the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society. The survey focused on pre-procedural, intra-procedural, and post-procedural thromboembolism prophylaxis practices during invasive electrophysiology studies. Significant practice variation was defined as <90% concordance among respondents. Results: Survey was completed by 73 members; 52 (71%) practicing in the United States, 65 (89%) practicing in an academic institution, and 14 (19%) in an institution that performs more than 200 invasive electrophysiology procedures annually. Responses showed significant variation in practice. Prior to an invasive electrophysiology procedure, 25% discontinue aspirin while 47% discontinue anticoagulants. Heparin is given for all procedures by 32%. When heparin is administered, the first dose is given by 32% after sheaths are placed, 42% after crossing into the systemic atrium, and 26% just prior to systemic-side ablation. Most target an activated clotting time between 200"“300 seconds. Post systemic-side ablation, 58% do not initiate a heparin infusion. Post-procedural oral agents were initiated on day of procedure by 34% of respondents and on post-procedure day 1 by 53%. If treating with aspirin, 74% use low-dose (3"“5 mg/kg or 81 mg daily), and 68% treat for 4"“6 weeks. Conclusion: There is significant variation in thromboembolism prophylaxis for invasive EP studies among pediatric and congenital electrophysiologists. Further studies are needed to optimize the management of thromboembolism prophylaxis in this population.

Phenytoin is a versatile drug with utility in neurological, dermatological, and even cardiac disease processes. Though phenytoin is widely available due to its excellent anti-epileptic properties, it is now rarely used as an antiarrhythmic. Phenytoin has well-studied sodium-channel blocking abilities which can be taken advantage of to treat ventricular arrhythmias. Thus, it should remain in the arsenal of antiarrhythmics for any electrophysiologist. We present two cases of intractable ventricular arrhythmia in children that were controlled with phenytoin at supra-therapeutic serum levels, preventing the need for heart transplantation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Congenital left ventricle to coronary sinus fistula is a rare entity. We report a case of an infant with prenatal finding of left ventricle to right atrial shunt. The anatomy was defined by multi-modality imaging. Baseline electrocardiogram was notable for a Wolff-Parkinson-White pattern. He underwent successful catheter device closure of the left ventricle to coronary sinus fistula. The patient developed supraventricular tachycardia and underwent successful ablation of the accessory pathway.

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.

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.

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.