The use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in pediatric patients awaiting heart transplantation

doi:10.1054/S1071-9164(03)00128-3

Journal of Cardiac Failure

Volume 9, Issue 5, October 2003, Pages 375-379

https://doi.org/10.1054/S1071-9164(03)00128-3 Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

This multicenter study evaluated experience with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) as a bridge to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) in children.

Methods

The application of ICD therapy continues to expand in pediatric populations, due in part to improved technology and new indications, including the prevention of sudden death while awaiting OHT.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of ICD databases at 9 pediatric transplant centers.

Results

Twenty-eight patients (16 males) underwent implantation or had a preexisting ICD while awaiting OHT between 1990 and 2002. The median age at implant was 14.3 years (11 months to 21 years) with a median weight of 49 kg (11.7-88 kg). Diagnoses included cardiomyopathy (n = 22), and congenital heart disease (n = 6). Indications for ICD implantation included ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (n = 23), syncope (n = 5), aborted sudden death with no documentation of rhythm disturbance (n = 5), ventricular ectopy (n = 1), and poor function (n = 5). Of the 28 ICDs, 23 were implanted by a transvenous approach and 5 by epicardial route. There were 55 defibrillator discharges in 17 patients, 47 (85%) of which (in 13 patients) were appropriate. The 8 inappropriate discharges (in 6 patients) were triggered by sinus tachycardia, inappropriate sensing, and atrial flutter. The mean time from implantation to first appropriate shock was 6.9 months (1 day to 2.6 years). Twenty-one patients underwent transplantation during the study period, whereas 2 died while awaiting a donor. Morbidity included a lead fracture, 3 episodes of electromechanical dissociation, and 1 episode of electrical storm.

Conclusions

ICD implantation represents an effective bridge to transplantation in pediatric patients. The complication rate is low, with inappropriate device discharge due primarily to sinus tachycardia or atrial flutter. There is a high incidence of appropriate ICD therapy for malignant ventricular arrhythmias in this highly selected group of patients.

Section snippets

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of patient records and clinical databases at 9 pediatric cardiology centers: Stanford University; University of California, San Francisco; The Children’s Hospital, Boston; University of Southern California; University of Utah; Sick Children’s Hospital, Toronto; Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle; Children’s Hospital Denver; and Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston. Inclusion criteria for entry into the study were as follows:

1.
Patients

Patients

A total of 28 patients (16 males) were eligible for inclusion. The median age at implant was 14.3 years (11 months to 21 years) with a median weight of 49 kg (11.7-88 kg) (Table 1). There were 6 patients who were ≤10 years of age, and 22 between the ages of 11 and 21. Twenty-one patients successfully received cardiac transplantation and 2 patients died from refractory congestive heart failure while awaiting a donor.

The most common diagnosis in this patient population was cardiomyopathy (Table 2

Discussion

There has been much interest in the use of ICD therapy for prevention of sudden death in adult patients awaiting transplant.14., 15. Brugada and colleagues found that 71% of their patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmias awaiting transplant had appropriate discharges. No such studies have been performed in the pediatric population, which is, in many important respects, a distinct group with a different heart failure substrate. The indications for the use of ICD therapy in pediatric

References (18)

M.M. Boucek et al.
The registry of the international society for heart and lung transplantation: fifth official pediatric report—2001 to 2002
J Heart Lung Transplant
(2002)
D.N. Rosenthal et al.
Outcome while awaiting heart transplantation in children: a comparison of congenital heart disease and cardiomyopathy
J Heart Lung Transplant
(2000)
W.R. Morrow et al.
Survival after listing for cardiac transplantation in children
Prog Pediatr Cardiol
(2000)
A. Forni et al.
Safety and efficacy of automatic implantable defibrillator used as a bridge to heart transplant
Transpl Proc
(2001)
D.S. Poll et al.
Usefulness of programmed stimulation in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy
Am J Cardiol
(1986)
M.S. Link et al.
Comparison of frequency of complications of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children versus adults
Am J Cardiol
(1999)
R. Radley-Smith et al.
Heart and heart-lung transplantation in children
Circulation
(1978)
D. Baum et al.
Pediatric heart transplantation at Stanford: results of a 15 year experience
Pediatrics
(1991)
J. Steinberger et al.
Outcome after referral for pediatric transplantation
J Heart Lung Transplant
(1993)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (78)

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients
2021, Heart Rhythm
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: 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)
2021, JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
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
2021, Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal
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
2021, Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal
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: Executive Summary
2021, Heart Rhythm
Cost utility of wearable cardioverter-defibrillators in children with dilated cardiomyopathy during medical optimization: Is it worth the wait?
2020, Heart Rhythm

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

The use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in pediatric patients awaiting heart transplantation

Abstract

Background

Methods

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Section snippets

Methods

Patients

Discussion

J Heart Lung Transplant

J Heart Lung Transplant

Prog Pediatr Cardiol

Transpl Proc

Am J Cardiol

Am J Cardiol

Heart and heart-lung transplantation in children

Circulation

Pediatric heart transplantation at Stanford: results of a 15 year experience

Pediatrics

Outcome after referral for pediatric transplantation

J Heart Lung Transplant