Faculty Bibliography

Background The objective of this international multicenter study was to investigate both early and late outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with a systemic right ventricle (SRV) and to identify predictors for congestive heart failure readmissions and mortality. Methods and Results This retrospective international multicenter study included 13 centers. The study population comprised 80 adult patients with SRV (48.9% women) with a mean age of 45±14 (range, 18-77) years at initiation of CRT. Median follow-up time was 4.1 (25th-75th percentile, 1.3-8.3) years. Underlying congenital heart disease consisted of congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries and dextro-transposition of the great arteries in 63 (78.8%) and 17 (21.3%) patients, respectively. CRT resulted in significant improvement in functional class (before CRT: III, 25th-75th percentile, II-III; after CRT: II, 25th-75th percentile, II-III; P=0.005) and QRS duration (before CRT: 176±27; after CRT: 150±24 milliseconds; P=0.003) in patients with pre-CRT ventricular pacing who underwent an upgrade to a CRT device (n=49). These improvements persisted during long-term follow-up with a marginal but significant increase in SRV function (before CRT; 30%, 25th-75th percentile, 25-35; after CRT: 31%, 25th-75th percentile, 21-38; P=0.049). In contrast, no beneficial change in the above-mentioned variables was observed in patients who underwent de novo CRT (n=31). A quarter of all patients were readmitted for heart failure during follow-up, and mortality at latest follow-up was 21.3%. Conclusions This international experience with CRT in patients with an SRV demonstrated that CRT in selected patients with SRV dysfunction and pacing-induced dyssynchrony yielded consistent improvement in QRS duration and New York Heart Association functional status, with a marginal increase in SRV function.

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.

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.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This study sought to determine the relationship between long QT syndrome (LQTS) subtype (LTQ1, LTQ2, LTQ3) and postnatal cardiac events (CEs). BACKGROUND:LQTS presenting with 2:1 atrioventricular block or torsades de pointes in the fetus and/or neonate has been associated with risk for major CEs, but overall outcomes and predictors remain unknown. METHODS:A retrospective study involving 25 international centers evaluated the course of fetuses/newborns diagnosed with congenital LQTS and either 2:1 atrioventricular block or torsades de pointes. The primary outcomes were age at first CE after dismissal from the newborn hospitalization and death and/or cardiac transplantation during follow-up. CE was defined as aborted cardiac arrest, appropriate shock from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, or sudden cardiac death. RESULTS:A total of 84 fetuses and/or neonates were identified with LQTS (12 as LQT1, 35 as LQT2, 37 as LQT3). Median gestational age at delivery was 37 weeks (interquartile range: 35 to 39 weeks) and age at hospital discharge was 3 weeks (interquartile range: 2 to 5 weeks). Fetal demise occurred in 2 and pre-discharge death in 1. Over a median of 5.2 years, there were 1 LQT1, 3 LQT2, and 23 LQT3 CEs (13 aborted cardiac arrests, 5 sudden cardiac deaths, and 9 appropriate shocks). One patient with LQT1 and 11 patients with LQT3 died or received cardiac transplant during follow-up. The only multivariate predictor of post-discharge CEs was LQT3 status (LQT3 vs. LQT2: hazard ratio: 8.4; 95% confidence interval: 2.6 to 38.9; p < 0.001), and LQT3, relative to LQT2, genotype predicted death and/or cardiac transplant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:In this large multicenter study, fetuses and/or neonates with LQT3 but not those with LQT1 or LQT2 presenting with severe arrhythmias were at high risk of not only frequent, but lethal CEs.