[The use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) in children and adolescents]. / ICD-Schrittmachertherapie bei Kindern und Jugendlichen.

BACKGROUND: The compelling safety and efficacy data in numerous large, blinded trials on adult patients, and the progress in device- and leadtechnology have led to increasing use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in pediatric patients. The purpose of our study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ICD in the pediatric age group of a tertiary referral centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between March 1998 and October 2003 12 patients underwent ICD-implantation. The mean age at implantation was 14,8 years with a range between 10-17 years. The underlying cardiac disorders included long QT-syndrome in 4 patients, ventricular fibrillation in 3 patients, dilated cardiomyopathy in 4 patients, and congenital heart disease in 1 patient (pulmonary atresia with ventricular septal defect after Rastelli repair). All patients received a transvenous ICD-system (VVI-ICD in 4 patients, DDD-ICD in 8 patients). RESULTS: The mean follow up was 35 months (6-68 months). During this period there were no severe complications nor mortality. We haven't seen infections, thromboembolic complications or lead-perforations. 2 patients (17 %) received appropriate DC-shocks, 1 patient (8 %) received an inappropriate DC-shock. 10 patients (83 %) had no malignant ventricular arrhythmia under medical therapy. 2 patients (17 %) required revision because of lead-dysfunction. In 2 patients with DCM the device was explanted during orthotopic heart transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that advances in device- and leadtechnology have resulted in a decrease of severe complications in the pediatric age group. We conclude that ICD-implantation represents a safe and effective therapy for children and adolescents with lifethreatening ventricular dysrhythmias. Since it represents an invasive therapy, indication should be confined to patients with lifethreatening dysrhythmias according to the guidelines of the American Heart Association.

A multicenter, randomized trial comparing an active can implantable defibrillator with a passive can system. Jewel Active Can Investigators.

Replacing one defibrillation electrode lead by the defibrillator can may simplify implantation of the ICD. In this multicenter study, 304 patients were randomized to receive either the biphasic active can (AC) (model 7219C system, Medtronic, Inc.) or the passive can (PC) (model 7219D system). The AC and PC systems were compared with respect to their ability to meet the implant defibrillation criterion and to defibrillate VF, and to DFTs, implant time, patient adverse events, and survival rates. A higher percentage fulfilled the implant defibrillation criterion on the first configuration with the AC (86.3% vs 75.9% for PC; P = 0.023), and the first shock success for terminating induced VF was 94% for AC compared to 89% for PC (P = 0.026). DFTs were significantly lower (10.9 vs 12.7 J; P = 0.031), and implant time was significantly shorter for the AC patients (99.2 vs 112.0 min; P = 0.002). The two groups showed no significant differences in 3-month adverse event rates, 3-month survival, and hospital stay.