Current State of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Remote Monitoring in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease: A PACES-Sponsored Quality Improvement Initiative.

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) remote transmissions are an integral part of longitudinal follow-up in pediatric and adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients. To evaluate baseline CIED remote monitoring (RM) data among pediatric and ACHD centers prior to implementation of a Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology  Society (PACES)-sponsored quality improvement (QI) project. This is a cross-sectional study of baseline CIED RM. Centers self-reported baseline data: individual center RM compliance was defined as high if there was > 80% achievement and low if < 50%. A total of 22 pediatric centers in the USA and Australia submitted baseline data. Non-physicians were responsible for management of the RM program in most centers: registered nurse (36%), advanced practice provider (27%), combination (23%), and third party (9%). Fifteen centers (68%) reported that > 80% of their CIED patients are enrolled in RM and only two centers reported < 50% participation. 36% reported high compliance of device transmission within 14 days of implant and 77% of centers reported high compliance of CIED patients enrolled in RM. The number of centers achieving high compliance differed by device type: 36% for pacemakers, 50% for ICDs, and 55% for Implantable Cardiac Monitors (ICM). All centers reported at least 50% adherence to recommended follow-up for PM and ICD, with 23% low compliance rate for ICMs. Based on this cross-sectional survey of pediatric and ACHD centers, compliance with CIED RM is sub-optimal. The PACES-sponsored QI initiative will provide resources and support to participating centers and repeat data will be evaluated after PDSA cycles.

Variations in cardiac implantable electronic device surveillance and ancillary testing in the paediatric and congenital heart disease population: an international multi-centre survey from the Paediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society.

BACKGROUND: Expert guidance from scientific societies and regulatory agencies recommend a framework of principles for frequency of in-person evaluations and remote monitoring for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. However, there are limited data regarding adherence to recommendations among paediatric electrophysiologists, and there are no data regarding cardiac implantable electronic device-related ancillary testing. METHODS: To assess current clinical practices for cardiac implantable electronic device in-person evaluation, remote monitoring, and cardiac implantable electronic device-related ancillary testing, the Paediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society members were surveyed. The main outcome measures were variations in frequency of in person evaluation, frequency of remote monitoring, and cardiac implantable electronic device-related ancillary testing. RESULTS: All respondents performed in-person evaluation at least once a year, but <50% of respondents performed an in-person evaluation within 2 weeks of cardiac implantable electronic device implantation. Remote monitoring was performed every 3 months for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators by 71 and 75% respondents, respectively. Follow-up echocardiography was performed every 2-3 years by 53% respondents for patients with >50% ventricular pacing. Majority of respondents (75%) did not perform either an exercise stress test or ambulatory Holter monitoring or chest X-ray (65%) after cardiac implantable electronic device implantation. CONCLUSION: This survey identified significant practice variations in cardiac implantable electronic device in- person evaluation, remote monitoring, and ancillary testing practices among paediatric electrophysiologists. Cardiac implantable electronic device management may be optimised by development of a paediatric-specific guidelines for follow-up and ancillary testing.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Arrhythmias Following the Mustard and Senning Operations for Dextro-Transposition of the Great Arteries: Clinical Aspects and Catheter Ablation.

The atrial switch operations, the Mustard and Senning procedures, performed for dextro-transposition of the great arteries, have largely been supplanted by the arterial switch operation. As such, affected patients will only exist for approximately 30 more years. The main arrhythmias in these patients include sinoatrial node dysfunction, intraatrial reentry tachycardia, and sudden death. Device therapy for these patients is well-established, and catheter ablation for atrial tachycardias is highly efficacious. The application of meticulous procedural planning, customization of catheter courses, and electrophysiologic principles to this patient group may be extended to all postoperative complex congenital heart patients.

Screening the apparently healthy athlete for risk: a paradigm in transition.

It has largely been accepted that pre-participation screening for student athletes is necessary, but there is still no consensus on the most effective and efficient ways to accomplish this. Most clinical strategies are based on retrospective case series. By applying the European Society of Cardiology and Seattle criteria, electrocardiography appears to afford the lowest false-positive rate for identifying potentially dangerous cardiac abnormalities in athletes. Prospective, randomised trials may help determine the most effective primary prevention. Normative data for age, gender, and ethnicity for screening tools need to be formulated to further reduce false-positive results. Targeted advanced screening aimed at the highest risk groups may be the most beneficial and cost-effective application of primary prevention.

Implantable cardiac devices: the utility of remote monitoring in a paediatric and CHD population.

Remote monitoring in the modern era has improved outcomes for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. There are many advantages to remote monitoring, including improved quality of life for patients, decreased need for in-office interrogation, and secondary reduced costs. Patient safety and enhanced survival remain the most significant benefit. With most of the published literature on this topic being focussed on adults, paediatric outcomes continue to be defined. This is a review of the benefits of remote monitoring in paediatrics and in patients with CHD.

Creating a lesion-specific "roadmap" for ambulatory care following surgery for complex congenital cardiac disease.

Over the past 20 years, the successes of neonatal and infant surgery have resulted in dramatically changed demographics in ambulatory cardiology. These school-aged children and young adults have complex and, in some cases, previously unexpected cardiac and non-cardiac consequences of their surgical and/or transcatheter procedures. There is a growing need for additional cardiac and non-cardiac subspecialists, and coordination of care may be quite challenging. In contrast to hospital-based care, where inpatient care protocols are common, and perioperative expectations are more or less predictable for most children, ambulatory cardiologists have evolved strategies of care more or less independently, based on their education, training, experience, and individual styles, resulting in highly variable follow-up strategies. We have proposed a combination proactive-reactive collaborative model with a patient's primary cardiologist, primary-care provider, and subspecialists, along with the patient and their family. The goal is to help standardise data collection in the ambulatory setting, reduce patient and family anxiety, increase health literacy, measure and address the non-cardiac consequences of complex cardiac disease, and aid in the transition to self-care as an adult.

Dexmedetomidine use in patients undergoing electrophysiological study for supraventricular tachyarrhythmias.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha-2 adrenergic agonist with sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic properties. Dexmedetomidine has not been approved for use in pediatrics. Dexmedetomidine has been reported to depress sinus node and atrioventricular nodal function in pediatric patients; it has been suggested that the use of dexmedetomidine may not be desirable during electrophysiological studies. AIM: We hypothesize that the use of dexmedetomidine does not inhibit the induction of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias (SVT) during electrophysiological studies and does not inhibit the ablation of such arrhythmias. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational cohort study, we reviewed all cases presenting to the cardiac catheterization laboratory for diagnosis or treatment of SVT since 2007. All cases were performed by the same electrophysiologist. The anesthesia was provided by one of the three cardiac anesthesiologists. One cardiac anesthesiologist did not use dexmedetomidine during electrophysiological studies. A second used dexmedetomidine, but only with an infusion. The third used dexmedetomidine with a primary bolus and an infusion. Thus, the patients were stratified into three different groups: Group 1 patients did not receive any dexmedetomidine. Group 2 patients received a dexmedetomidine infusion of 0.5-1 µg·kg-1 ·h-1 . Group 3 patients received a dexmedetomidine infusion of 0.5-1 µg·kg-1 ·h-1 and a dexmedetomidine bolus prior to the infusion of 0.5-1 µg·kg-1 . We then compared those patients for the following variables: demographic data including age, sex, height, weight; anesthetic data such as, mask vs intravenous induction, identity of induction agent, amount of sevoflurane and propofol used; amount of dexmedetomidine used; presence of congenital heart disease and other comorbidities; the need for isoproterenol and dose, the need for adenosine and dose, and the need for any other medications to affect rhythm both before and after radiofrequency ablation; the ability to induce the arrhythmia, the type of arrhythmia, the presence of Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, the presence of an accessory pathway, the ablation rate, and the recurrence rate. RESULTS: There was no difference in the anesthetic agents, except there was a lesser amount of propofol used in the dexmedetomidine groups (χ2(2) = 48.2, P < 0.001). There was no difference in the electrophysiological parameters among groups, except the Group 1 patients did require the use of isoproterenol in the preablation period less often compared to the dexmedetomidine groups (χ2(2) = 15.2, P < 0.01). However, with the greater use of isoproterenol, there was no difference in the ability to induce the arrhythmia. Moreover, the percentage of patients ablated, and the recurrence rate among groups was the same. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that dexmedetomidine does not interfere with the conduct of electrophysiological studies for SVT and the successful ablation of such arrhythmias. However, dexmedetomidine use did result in a greater need for isoproterenol.

Defibrillation Testing Strategies of Pediatric and Adult Congenital Electrophysiologists during ICD Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Recently, there has been an increasing number of internal medicine-trained electrophysiologists who choose not to test for acute defibrillation efficacy during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation. It is not known whether this same trend is seen in pediatric electrophysiologists, who care primarily for patients with congenital heart disease or primary electrical problems. METHODS: Through a 14-question survey created on Survey Monkey, we asked the members of the Pediatric and Adult Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) for their approach to ICD implantation. In particular, respondents were asked for their individual practice preferences on testing for acute defibrillation efficacy, including methods used for testing. RESULTS: There were 108 survey respondents. Thirty-nine percent test acute defibrillation efficacy at all implants, while 46% test in most patients, barring any clinical concerns. Another 14% routinely test during initial ICD system implants but not during generator changes with existing leads. Less than 1% of respondents do not routinely test acute defibrillation efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The practice preferences of pediatric electrophysiologists in evaluating for acute defibrillation efficacy during ICD implants are in contrast to the recent trend in their internal medicine-trained counterparts. More studies are needed to determine if practice changes should be considered in the pediatric and adult congenital patient population.

Creation of partial fascicular block: an approach to ablation of idiopathic left ventricular tachycardia in the pediatric population.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of idiopathic left ventricular tachycardia in the pediatric population remains challenging. A recent multicenter study reported limited success with 14% not undergoing ablation due to inability to induce ventricular tachycardia (VT) or blood pressure instability during tachycardia. Creating complete or partial fascicular block with radiofrequency catheter ablation is a technique that may eliminate VT. This approach is performed during sinus rhythm, enabling atrioventricular conduction monitoring and maintaining stable hemodynamics. Importantly, induction of VT is not necessary for mapping or assessing efficacy of the procedure. METHODS: A retrospective review of pediatric patients (3-17 years) with recurrent, documented idiopathic left ventricular tachycardia by electrocardiogram who received catheter ablation by creating fascicular block as a therapeutic endpoint was performed. All had ablation at the site of an identified Purkinje potential. RESULTS: There were six patients with idiopathic left ventricular tachycardia, five originating from the posterior fascicle and one from the anterior fascicle. VT was not induced or spontaneous in four patients using programmed stimulation and isoproterenol infusion. All patients had a QRS axis shift following ablation, though none met criteria for fascicular block. At follow up (7-49 months, mean 27 months), all patients had persistence of this shift. There were no recurrences of VT and none of the patients were taking antiarrhythmic medication. CONCLUSION: The technique of creating partial fascicular block appears to be a safe and effective approach to ablation of idiopathic left ventricular tachycardia in children.