Utility of routine follow-up defibrillation safety margin testing in young patients with epicardial implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: Routine defibrillation threshold testing (DFT) of transvenous implantable defibrillators (ICDs) has largely been in decline. In patients with non-transvenous ICDs that utilize subcutaneous and pleural ICD leads, serial DFT testing can detect a significant number of failures. Data about the utility of follow-up defibrillation safety margin testing (DSM) testing in pediatric patients and young adults with an epicardial ICD are lacking. METHODS: Patients aged < 25 years old who underwent epicardial ICD placement at Mayo Clinic from 2014 to 2023 with at least one follow-up DSM test were included. The patients were divided into a "routine" (R) and "clinically indicated" (CI) group based on the index of clinical concern. Inadequate DSM was defined as unsuccessful defibrillation at an output of less than 10 J below the maximum output of the device. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of follow-up DSM testing. RESULTS: An epicardial ICD system was placed in 122 patients. A total of 26 patients met inclusion criteria and underwent a total of 47 DSM follow up tests. Inadequate DSM occurred in 1/33 (3%) in the R group and 2/14 (14%) DSM tests in the CI group. The median follow-up period was 54 and 36 months for the R and CI group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that epicardial ICDs are reliable and routine follow-up DSM testing may not be necessary for all patients. DSM testing should be performed in individuals with epicardial ICD systems when there is clinical concern about lead or coil performance.

Septal Myectomy Outcomes in Children and Adolescents With Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Little data exist regarding characteristics and outcomes of pediatric patients undergoing septal myectomy. We evaluated this in a large referral population. METHODS: Septal myectomy was performed in 199 consecutive patients aged ≤18 years with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy from January 1, 1976, to June 30, 2021. RESULTS: Median age was 13 years (interquartile range [IQR], 8-15 years). Left ventricular myectomy approaches included transaortic (163 of 198 [82%]), transapical (16 of 198 [8%]), and combined (19 of 198 [10%]). Right ventricular interventions included myectomy (13 of 199 [7%]) and patch reconstruction of the outflow tract (15 of 199 [8%]). Maximum left ventricular outflow tract gradients decreased after myectomy (prebypass: 50 mm Hg [IQR, 31-73 mm Hg] vs postbypass: 4 mm Hg [IQR, 0-9 mm Hg], P < .001), and this was sustained long-term (5 mm Hg [IQR, 5-10 mm Hg] at 10 years). Iatrogenic aortic and mitral valve injuries occurred in 13 of 199 (7%) and 1 of 199 (1%), respectively; however, all were successfully repaired. Operative mortality was 2 of 199 (1%). The cumulative incidence of redo myectomy was low, at 5.8% at 5 and 8.3% at 10 years. Redo myectomy patients had higher maximum left ventricular outflow tract gradients on echocardiography at predischarge and 1 year and were younger at the index operation (8 years [IQR, 2.5-10 years] vs 13 years [IQR, 9-16 years], P < .001). Overall survival at 10 years was 90%, relative to 47% in a previously reported pediatric nonoperative cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric septal myectomy provides safe, effective, and durable relief of ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Iatrogenic valve injury remains a low but nonnegligible risk. Recurrent obstruction requiring redo myectomy is infrequent and can be identified early. Long-term survival in this pediatric septal myectomy cohort appears to fare better than pediatric hypertrophic cardiomyopathy cohorts managed nonoperatively.

Pediatric Epicardial Devices: Early and Midterm Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Lead performance is suboptimal in young patients and a main cause of device system failure. Our objective was to assess early and midterm outcomes after epicardial device implantation in a contemporary pediatric cohort. METHODS: A total of 116 consecutive pediatric patients underwent 137 epicardial device implantations from 2010 to 2019. Forty pacemakers and 97 implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) were implanted. Lead failure was defined as leads repaired, replaced, or abandoned due to fracture, dislodgement, or dysfunction. Freedom from device system failure was determined using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Mean age at implantation was 10 ± 5 years, 46 (34%) were younger than 8 years old, 41 (30%) had prior cardiac surgery, and 38 (28%) had prior devices. Main indications were acquired heart block (17/40 [43%]), sinus node dysfunction (14/40 [35%]), and congenital heart block (7/40 [18%]) for pacemakers, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (46/97 [47%]), long QT syndrome (31/97 [32%]), and ventricular arrhythmia (17/97 [18%]) for ICDs. There were no early deaths. Three-year freedom from device system failure was 80% (95% CI 73%, 88%) for all patients and 88% (95% CI 79%, 99%) for patients <8 years old. Device system failure causes included lead fracture (20/34 [59%]), lead dysfunction (5/34 [15%]), lead dislodgement (5/34 [15%]), infection (3/34 [9%]), and pericarditis (1/34 [3%]). Reintervention was required in 26/34 (76%) device system failures. CONCLUSIONS: Epicardial device implantation is safe, shows acceptable midterm outcomes in children, and is an effective option in patients younger than 8 years old. Close device surveillance continues to be essential to detect lead failure early and ensure timely reintervention.

Contemporary Early Postoperative Cone Repair Outcomes for Patients With Ebstein Anomaly.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the early postoperative outcomes after cone repair (CR) for Ebstein anomaly (EA) across the age spectrum. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For this study, 284 patients from 1 to 73 years of age who underwent CR at Mayo Clinic from June 1, 2007, to December 21, 2018, were separated by age group (1-<4, 4-<19, 19-<40, and 40+ years) and by disease severity for analysis. Outcomes of interest included death, reoperation, readmission, early postoperative complications, cardiac intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and need for superior cavopulmonary anastomosis. RESULTS: Mortality within 30 days was 0%. The reoperation rate was 4.9% (n=14) and the median hospital length of stay was 5 days, with no statistical difference between ages at time of CR or severity groups. The readmission rate was 2% (n=6). Postoperative complications were seen in 8.8% (n=25) of cases overall, with higher rates in the youngest age group (21%, P<.001). Superior cavopulmonary anastomosis was most common in the youngest age group (37% vs 17% overall, P<.001) and in those with severe disease (35%, P<.001). CONCLUSION: Children and adults with Ebstein anomaly have very good early postoperative outcomes with a less than 10% complication and reoperation rate and very low mortality following cone reconstruction. In the setting of good and stable right ventricle function and no symptoms of heart failure or cyanosis, waiting for CR until 4 years of age may minimize early postoperative complications and need for superior cavopulmonary anastomosis.

Empiric Slow Pathway Cryoablation in Symptomatic Children Without Documented Supraventricular Tachycardia.

In symptomatic children without documented supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) and non-inducible atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT) the benefit of empiric slow pathway (SP) ablation is unknown. We evaluated 62 symptomatic patients without documented SVT that underwent electrophysiology study (EPS). The purpose of this study was to determine if symptoms improved after empiric SP ablation in children without documented SVT and without inducible AVNRT. Sixty-two symptomatic patients without previously documented SVT underwent EPS; 31 (50%) had inducible AVNRT and underwent SP ablation, 20 (32%) were non-inducible and underwent empiric SP ablation, 11 (18%) were non-inducible and had no ablation. After a mean follow-up of 23 ± 18 months there was no significant difference in freedom from symptoms within the non-inducible cohort regardless of whether empiric SP ablation was performed (p = 0.135). There was a significant improvement in symptoms at follow-up after SP ablation when comparing inducible and non-inducible patients (p = 0.020). During follow-up no patients had documented SVT. Symptomatic children without documented SVT do not benefit from empiric SP ablation when AVNRT cannot be induced.

From Safety to Benefit in Cell Delivery During Surgical Repair of Ebstein Anomaly: Initial Results.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to assess the safety and early impact of intramyocardial delivery of autologous bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells (BM-MNC) at time of surgical Ebstein repair. METHODS: Patients with Ebstein anomaly (ages 6 months to 30 years) scheduled to undergo repair of the tricuspid valve were eligible to participate in this open-label, non-randomized phase I clinical trial. BM-MNC target dose was 1-3 million cells/kg. Ten patients have undergone surgical intervention and cell delivery to the right ventricle (RV) and completed 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: All patients underwent surgical tricuspid valve repair and uneventful BM-MNC delivery; there were no ventricular arrhythmias and no adverse events related to study product or delivery. Echocardiographic RV myocardial performance index improved and RV fractional area change showed an initial decline and then through study follow-up. There was no evidence of delayed myocardial enhancement or regional wall motion abnormalities at injection sites on 6-month follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Intramyocardial delivery of BM-MNC after surgical repair in Ebstein anomaly can be performed safely. Echocardiography variables suggest a positive impact of cell delivery on the RV myocardium with improvements in both RV size and wall motion over time. Additional follow-up and comparison to control groups are required to better characterize the impact of cell therapy on the myopathic RV in Ebstein anomaly.

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: 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.

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.

Safety and efficacy of (+)-epicatechin in subjects with Friedreich's ataxia: A phase II, open-label, prospective study.

BACKGROUND: (+)-Epicatechin (EPI) induces mitochondrial biogenesis and antioxidant metabolism in muscle fibers and neurons. We aimed to evaluate safety and efficacy of (+)-EPI in pediatric subjects with Friedreich's ataxia (FRDA). METHODS: This was a phase II, open-label, baseline-controlled single-center trial including 10 participants ages 10 to 22 with confirmed FA diagnosis. (+)-EPI was administered orally at 75 mg/d for 24 weeks, with escalation to 150 mg/d at 12 weeks for subjects not showing improvement of neuromuscular, neurological or cardiac endpoints. Neurological endpoints were change from baseline in Friedreich's Ataxia Rating Scale (FARS) and 8-m timed walk. Cardiac endpoints were changes from baseline in left ventricular (LV) structure and function by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and echocardiogram, changes in cardiac electrophysiology, and changes in biomarkers for heart failure and hypertrophy. RESULTS: Mean FARS/modified (m)FARS scores showed nonstatistically significant improvement by both group and individual analysis. FARS/mFARS scores improved in 5/9 subjects (56%), 8-m walk in 3/9 (33%), 9-peg hole test in 6/10 (60%). LV mass index by cardiac MRI was significantly reduced at 12 weeks (P = .045), and was improved in 7/10 (70%) subjects at 24 weeks. Mean LV ejection fraction was increased at 24 weeks (P = .008) compared to baseline. Mean maximal septal thickness by echocardiography was increased at 24 weeks (P = .031). There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: (+)-EPI was well tolerated over 24 weeks at up to 150 mg/d. Improvement was observed in cardiac structure and function in subset of subjects with FRDA without statistically significant improvement in primary neurological outcomes. SYNOPSIS: A (+)-epicatechin showed improvement of cardiac function, nonsignificant reduction of FARS/mFARS scores, and sustained significant upregulation of muscle-regeneration biomarker follistatin.

Rare Case of Fetal Permanent Junctional Reciprocating Tachycardia Refractory to Prenatal Antiarrhythmic Therapy.

Permanent junctional reciprocating tachycardia (PJRT) is a rare form of atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia that is commonly resistant to most antiarrhythmic medication therapy and over an extended duration can result in tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy. The prenatal presentation of PJRT is typically similar to that of other types of fetal supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), making it difficult to distinguish from other forms of SVT in utero by fetal echocardiography. Surface electrocardiography after delivery is typically required to make a definitive diagnosis of PJRT. We report a case of fetal SVT at 19 weeks' gestation refractory to maternal transplacental treatment with digoxin, amiodarone, flecainide, sotalol, metoprolol, intraumbilical amiodarone, and fetal intramuscular digoxin over the course of 12 weeks. Repeat cesarean delivery was performed at 30 2/7 weeks' gestation for tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy with hydrops fetalis. Postnatal electrocardiogram and continuous rhythm monitoring confirmed the diagnosis of PJRT. Combined neonatal treatment with amiodarone, digoxin, and propranolol was successful in reestablishment of sinus rhythm, with radiofrequency ablation planned if medical therapy eventually fails or once early childhood is reached. To our knowledge, this is the first described case of fetal PJRT refractory to multiple standard in utero antiarrhythmic modalities and highlights the importance of inclusion in the differential diagnosis.

Placement of Reveal LINQ Device in the Left Anterior Axillary Position.

Implantable loop recorders (ILR) are utilized for long-term rhythm monitoring. Typical placement of the Medtronic Reveal LINQ along the left parasternal border may compromise the quality and/or feasibility of future imaging studies. We sought to evaluate the utility of placing an ILR in the left anterior axillary position and the impact on the quality of cardiac imaging. We reviewed patients from May 2017 to June 2018 who had placement of a Reveal LINQ device in the left anterior axillary position. Demographic, procedural, and clinical data were collected via retrospective review. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies were reviewed for image quality after ILR placement. Eight patients met inclusion criteria for this study (median age 6 years, 50% female). Six patients (75%) had an ILR placed in the operating room, while all others were placed in the electrophysiology lab. All patients demonstrated acceptable R waves for diagnostic evaluation (median = 0.85 mV, range 0.24-1.7 mV). Cardiac MRI was obtained in 7 patients following ILR placement with diagnostic image quality and no adverse events. One device was explanted 28 days after placement due to concern for possible infection. No other devices required removal or revision (median follow up duration 11 months, IQR 8-13.5). ILR placement in the left anterior axillary position can record adequate signals in pediatric patients. In addition, axillary ILR device position may allow for completion of cardiac imaging, particularly cardiac MRI, without significant artifacts which is critical for patients with congenital heart disease.