• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

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.

• MeSH
• American Heart Association MeSH
• Defibrillators, Implantable * MeSH
• Child MeSH
• Electronics MeSH
• Cardiology * MeSH
• Consensus MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Cardiac Electrophysiology MeSH
• Check Tag
• Child MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Geographicals
• United States MeSH

• MeSH
• Defibrillators, Implantable * MeSH
• Child MeSH
• Electronics MeSH
• Tachycardia, Ventricular * MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Death, Sudden, Cardiac MeSH
• Heart MeSH
• Check Tag
• Child MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

• MeSH
• Defibrillators, Implantable * MeSH
• Child MeSH
• Electronics MeSH
• Consensus MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Heart * MeSH
• Check Tag
• Child MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Comment MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
• Practice Guideline MeSH

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.

• MeSH
• Defibrillators, Implantable * MeSH
• Diagnostic Techniques, Cardiovascular * MeSH
• Diagnostic Imaging MeSH
• Child MeSH
• Consensus MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Device Removal MeSH
• Cardiac Electrophysiology standards   MeSH
• Check Tag
• Child MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
• Practice Guideline MeSH
• Geographicals
• United States MeSH

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.

• MeSH
• American Heart Association MeSH
• Defibrillators, Implantable * MeSH
• Child MeSH
• Adult MeSH
• Electronics MeSH
• Cardiology * MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Check Tag
• Child MeSH
• Adult MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Practice Guideline MeSH
• Geographicals
• Latin America MeSH
• United States MeSH

BACKGROUND: Abrupt loss of ventricular preexcitation on noninvasive evaluation, or nonpersistent preexcitation, in Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome (WPW) is thought to indicate a low risk of life-threatening events. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare accessory pathway (AP) characteristics and occurrences of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) and rapidly conducted preexcited atrial fibrillation (RC-AF) in patients with nonpersistent and persistent preexcitation. METHODS: Patients 21 years or younger with WPW and invasive electrophysiology study (EPS) data, SCA, or RC-AF were identified from multicenter databases. Nonpersistent preexcitation was defined as absence/sudden loss of preexcitation on electrocardiogram, Holter monitoring, or exercise stress test. RC-AF was defined as clinical preexcited atrial fibrillation with shortest preexcited R-R interval (SPERRI) ≤ 250 ms. AP effective refractory period (APERP), SPERRI at EPS , and shortest preexcited paced cycle length (SPPCL) were collected. High-risk APs were defined as APERP, SPERRI, or SPPCL ≤ 250 ms. RESULTS: Of 1589 patients, 244 (15%) had nonpersistent preexcitation and 1345 (85%) had persistent preexcitation. There were no differences in sex (58% vs 60% male; P=.49) or age (13.3±3.6 years vs 13.1±3.9 years; P=.43) between groups. Although APERP (344±76 ms vs 312±61 ms; P<.001) and SPPCL (394±123 ms vs 317±82 ms; P<.001) were longer in nonpersistent vs persistent preexcitation, there was no difference in SPERRI at EPS (331±71 ms vs 316±73 ms; P=.15). Nonpersistent preexcitation was associated with fewer high-risk APs (13% vs 23%; P<.001) than persistent preexcitation. Of 61 patients with SCA or RC-AF, 6 (10%) had nonpersistent preexcitation (3 SCA, 3 RC-AF). CONCLUSION: Nonpersistent preexcitation was associated with fewer high-risk APs, though it did not exclude the risk of SCA or RC-AF in children with WPW.

• MeSH
• Global Health MeSH
• Electrocardiography, Ambulatory methods   MeSH
• Risk Assessment methods   MeSH
• Incidence MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Survival Rate trends   MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Death, Sudden, Cardiac epidemiology   etiology   MeSH
• Follow-Up Studies MeSH
• Heart Conduction System physiopathology   MeSH
• Retrospective Studies MeSH
• Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome complications   physiopathology   MeSH
• Exercise Test MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Multicenter Study MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead failures occur at higher rates in pediatric and congenital heart disease (CHD) patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate and timing of Riata lead failure in pediatric and CHD patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of pediatric patients and adults with CHD with implantation of a Riata or Riata ST lead between 2002 and 2009. The prevalence and timing of electrical failure and conductor coil externalization (CCE) were determined. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients and 63 leads from seven centers were included. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) age at implant was 14.4 (11.5-18.7) years and median follow-up was 8.7 (7.3-11.1) years. The underlying diagnosis was a primary arrhythmia disorder in 45%, cardiomyopathy in 31%, and CHD in 28% of patients. Electrical failure occurred in 43% and CCE in 16% of leads at median lead ages of 4.7 (3.4-7.5) and 4.3 (3.9-7.0) years, respectively. Median lead survival free from electrical failure or CCE was 7.9 (95% confidence interval, 5.8-10.0) years. Forty-one percent of leads were functional at the end of the follow-up period, and 33% were extracted with a complication rate of 5%. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of Riata lead electrical failure was high in children and patients with CHD, while the rate of CCE was comparable with published data. Counseling on lead management should factor in the high rate of electrical failure with considerations for elective replacement.

• MeSH
• Time Factors MeSH
• Defibrillators, Implantable * MeSH
• Child MeSH
• Progression-Free Survival MeSH
• Electric Countershock adverse effects   instrumentation   MeSH
• Risk Assessment MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Device Removal MeSH
• Child, Preschool MeSH
• Prosthesis Design MeSH
• Retrospective Studies MeSH
• Risk Factors MeSH
• Prosthesis Failure * MeSH
• Age Factors MeSH
• Heart Defects, Congenital diagnosis   physiopathology   therapy   MeSH
• Check Tag
• Child MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Child, Preschool MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Multicenter Study MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
• Geographicals
• Czech Republic MeSH
• Canada MeSH
• United States MeSH

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize risk in children with Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome by comparing those who had experienced a life-threatening event (LTE) with a control population. BACKGROUND: Children with WPW syndrome are at risk of sudden death. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter pediatric study identified 912 subjects ≤21 years of age with WPW syndrome, using electrophysiology (EPS) studies. Case subjects had a history of LTE: sudden death, aborted sudden death, or atrial fibrillation (shortest pre-excited RR interval in atrial fibrillation [SPERRI] of ≤250 ms or with hemodynamic compromise); whereas subjects did not. We compared clinical and EPS data between cases and subjects. RESULTS: Case subjects (n = 96) were older and less likely than subjects (n = 816) to have symptoms or documented tachycardia. Mean age at LTE was 14.1 ± 3.9 years of age. The LTE was the sentinel symptom in 65%, consisting of rapidly conducted pre-excited atrial fibrillation (49%), aborted sudden death (45%), and sudden death (6%). Three risk components were considered at EPS: SPERRI, accessory pathway effective refractory period (APERP), and shortest paced cycle length with pre-excitation during atrial pacing (SPPCL), and all were shorter in cases than in control subjects. In multivariate analysis, risk factors for LTE included male sex, Ebstein malformation, rapid anterograde conduction (APERP, SPERRI, or SPPCL ≤250 ms), multiple pathways, and inducible atrial fibrillation. Of case subjects, 60 of 86 (69%) had ≥2 EPS risk stratification components performed; 22 of 60 (37%) did not have EPS-determined high-risk characteristics, and 15 of 60 (25%) had neither concerning pathway characteristics nor inducible atrioventricular reciprocating tachycardia. CONCLUSIONS: Young patients may experience LTE from WPW syndrome without prior symptoms or markers of high-risk on EPS.

• MeSH
• Child MeSH
• Atrial Fibrillation * epidemiology   etiology   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Death, Sudden * epidemiology   etiology   MeSH
• Retrospective Studies MeSH
• Risk Factors MeSH
• Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome * complications   epidemiology   mortality   MeSH
• Check Tag
• Child MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Multicenter Study MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH