Limited Relationship Between Echocardiographic Measures and Electrocardiographic Markers of Left Ventricular Size in Healthy Children.

Pediatric ECG standards have been defined without echocardiographic confirmation of normal anatomy. The Pediatric Heart Network Normal Echocardiogram Z-score Project provides a racially diverse group of healthy children with normal echocardiograms. We hypothesized that ECG and echocardiographic measures of left ventricular (LV) dimensions are sufficiently correlated in healthy children to imply a clinically meaningful relationship. This was a secondary analysis of a previously described cohort including 2170 digital ECGs. The relationship between 6 ECG measures associated with LV size were analyzed with LV Mass (LVMass-z) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV-z) along with 11 additional parameters. Pearson or Spearman correlations were calculated for the 78 ECG-echocardiographic pairs with regression analyses assessing the variance in ECG measures explained by variation in LV dimensions and demographic variables. ECG/echocardiographic measurement correlations were significant and concordant in 41/78 (53%), though many were significant and discordant (13/78). Of the 6 ECG parameters, 5 correlated in the clinically predicted direction for LV Mass-z and LVEDV-z. Even when statistically significant, correlations were weak (0.05-0.24). R2 was higher for demographic variables than for echocardiographic measures or body surface area in all pairs, but remained weak (R2 ≤ 0.17). In a large cohort of healthy children, there was a positive association between echocardiographic measures of LV size and ECG measures of LVH. These correlations were weak and dependent on factors other than echocardiographic or patient derived variables. Thus, our data support deemphasizing the use of solitary, traditional measurement-based ECG markers traditionally thought to be characteristic of LVH as standalone indications for further cardiac evaluation of LVH in children and adolescents.

Vigorous Exercise in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.

Importance: Whether vigorous intensity exercise is associated with an increase in risk of ventricular arrhythmias in individuals with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is unknown. Objective: To determine whether engagement in vigorous exercise is associated with increased risk for ventricular arrhythmias and/or mortality in individuals with HCM. The a priori hypothesis was that participants engaging in vigorous activity were not more likely to have an arrhythmic event or die than those who reported nonvigorous activity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was an investigator-initiated, prospective cohort study. Participants were enrolled from May 18, 2015, to April 25, 2019, with completion in February 28, 2022. Participants were categorized according to self-reported levels of physical activity: sedentary, moderate, or vigorous-intensity exercise. This was a multicenter, observational registry with recruitment at 42 high-volume HCM centers in the US and internationally; patients could also self-enroll through the central site. Individuals aged 8 to 60 years diagnosed with HCM or genotype positive without left ventricular hypertrophy (phenotype negative) without conditions precluding exercise were enrolled. Exposures: Amount and intensity of physical activity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary prespecified composite end point included death, resuscitated sudden cardiac arrest, arrhythmic syncope, and appropriate shock from an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. All outcome events were adjudicated by an events committee blinded to the patient's exercise category. Results: Among the 1660 total participants (mean [SD] age, 39 [15] years; 996 male [60%]), 252 (15%) were classified as sedentary, and 709 (43%) participated in moderate exercise. Among the 699 individuals (42%) who participated in vigorous-intensity exercise, 259 (37%) participated competitively. A total of 77 individuals (4.6%) reached the composite end point. These individuals included 44 (4.6%) of those classified as nonvigorous and 33 (4.7%) of those classified as vigorous, with corresponding rates of 15.3 and 15.9 per 1000 person-years, respectively. In multivariate Cox regression analysis of the primary composite end point, individuals engaging in vigorous exercise did not experience a higher rate of events compared with the nonvigorous group with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.01. The upper 95% 1-sided confidence level was 1.48, which was below the prespecified boundary of 1.5 for noninferiority. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that among individuals with HCM or those who are genotype positive/phenotype negative and are treated in experienced centers, those exercising vigorously did not experience a higher rate of death or life-threatening arrhythmias than those exercising moderately or those who were sedentary. These data may inform discussion between the patient and their expert clinician around exercise participation.

2023 HRS expert consensus statement on the management of arrhythmias during pregnancy.

This international multidisciplinary expert consensus statement is intended to provide comprehensive guidance that can be referenced at the point of care to cardiac electrophysiologists, cardiologists, and other health care professionals, on the management of cardiac arrhythmias in pregnant patients and in fetuses. This document covers general concepts related to arrhythmias, including both brady- and tachyarrhythmias, in both the patient and the fetus during pregnancy. Recommendations are provided for optimal approaches to diagnosis and evaluation of arrhythmias; selection of invasive and noninvasive options for treatment of arrhythmias; and disease- and patient-specific considerations when risk stratifying, diagnosing, and treating arrhythmias in pregnant patients and fetuses. Gaps in knowledge and new directions for future research are also identified.

Pediatric Electrophysiology Device Needs: A Survey from the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society Taskforce on Pediatric-Specific Devices.

Background There are few US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved devices specifically aimed at the pediatric patient with arrhythmia. This has led to a high off-label utilization of devices in this vulnerable population. The Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES), the international organization representing pediatric and congenital heart disease arrhythmia specialists, developed a task force to comprehensively address device development issues relevant to pediatric patients with congenital arrhythmia. Methods and Results As a first step, the taskforce developed a 26-question survey for the pediatric arrhythmia community to assess providers' understanding of the FDA approval process, specifically in regard to pediatric labeling. There were 92/211 respondents (44%) with a >90% completion rate. The vast majority of respondents believed there was a paucity of devices available for children (96%). More than 60% of respondents stated that they did not understand the FDA regulatory process and were not aware of whether the devices they used were labeled for pediatric use. Conclusions Pediatric electrophysiologists are keenly aware of the deficit of available pediatric devices for their patients. The majority do not understand the FDA approval process and could benefit from additional educational resources regarding this. A collaborative forum including PACES, FDA, patients and their families, and Industry would be an important next step in clarifying opportunities and priorities to serve this vulnerable population.

Contemporary maternal and fetal outcomes in the treatment of LQTS during pregnancy: Is nadolol bad for the fetus?

BACKGROUND: ß-Blocker therapy, specifically nadolol, is the recommended treatment for long QT syndrome (LQTS). Previous studies assessing maternal and fetal outcomes were published before the nadolol era. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine contemporary maternal and fetal outcomes in the treatment of LQTS during pregnancy. METHODS: We queried the Inherited Arrhythmia Database at Cleveland Clinic and identified all pregnant patients with LQTS from January 2001 through January 2020. Collected data included use and timing of ß-blockers, maternal arrhythmic events, fetal growth restriction, neonatal hypoglycemia, and bradycardia. RESULTS: Among 68 live-birth pregnancies in 31 women with LQTS (mean age 29 ± 5.9 years; mean corrected QT interval 468 ± 39 ms), there were 5 arrhythmic events in 4 mothers. All arrhythmic events occurred in the postpartum period, and there were no arrhythmic events in patients taking ß-blockers. In patients diagnosed with LQTS and treated with ß-blockers (n = 27 [41%]), nadolol was the most commonly prescribed agent throughout pregnancy and the postpartum period (n = 16 [60%]). The rate of intrauterine growth restriction was not significantly different in fetuses exposed to ß-blockers vs unexposed (P = .08). In the postnatal period, hypoglycemia was not seen and 1 patient in the exposure group had bradycardia. CONCLUSION: Arrhythmic events were only seen in the postpartum period in those not treated with ß-blockers. Events occurred as late as 9 months postpartum. ß-Blocker therapy, specifically nadolol, was not associated with a higher incidence of intrauterine growth restriction. Moreover, neonatal bradycardia was rare and hypoglycemia was not observed.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Associated Cardiovascular Manifestations and Complications in Children and Young Adults: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in a global pandemic and has overwhelmed health care systems worldwide. In this scientific statement, we describe the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentations, treatment, and outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and young adults with a focus on cardiovascular manifestations and complications. We review current knowledge about the health consequences of this illness in children and young adults with congenital and acquired heart disease, the public health burden and health disparities of this infection in these populations, and vaccine-associated myocarditis.

Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

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.

2020 APHRS/HRS expert consensus statement on the investigation of decedents with sudden unexplained death and patients with sudden cardiac arrest, and of their families.

This international multidisciplinary document intends to provide clinicians with evidence-based practical patient-centered recommendations for evaluating patients and decedents with (aborted) sudden cardiac arrest and their families. The document includes a framework for the investigation of the family allowing steps to be taken, should an inherited condition be found, to minimize further events in affected relatives. Integral to the process is counseling of the patients and families, not only because of the emotionally charged subject, but because finding (or not finding) the cause of the arrest may influence management of family members. The formation of multidisciplinary teams is essential to provide a complete service to the patients and their families, and the varied expertise of the writing committee was formulated to reflect this need. 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. The recommendations were opened for public comment and reviewed by the relevant scientific and clinical document committees of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS); the document underwent external review and endorsement by the partner and collaborating societies. While the recommendations are for optimal care, it is recognized that not all resources will be available to all clinicians. Nevertheless, this document articulates the evaluation that the clinician should aspire to provide for patients with sudden cardiac arrest, decedents with sudden unexplained death, and their families.