Recommendations for Centers Performing Pediatric Heart Surgery in the United States.

Care and outcomes for the more than 40,000 patients undergoing pediatric and congenital heart surgery in the United States annually are known to vary widely. While consensus recommendations have been published across numerous fields as one mechanism to promote a high level of care delivery across centers, it has been more than two decades since the last pediatric heart surgery recommendations were published in the United States. More recent guidance is lacking, and collaborative efforts involving the many disciplines engaged in caring for these children have not been undertaken to date. The present initiative brings together professional societies spanning numerous care domains and congenital cardiac surgeons, pediatric cardiologists, nursing, and other healthcare professionals from diverse programs around the country to develop consensus recommendations for United States centers. The focus of this initial work is on pediatric heart surgery, and it is recommended that future efforts focus in detail on the adult congenital population. We describe the background, rationale, and methodology related to this collaborative effort, and recommendations put forth for Essential Care Centers (essential services necessary for any program), and Comprehensive Care Centers (services to optimize comprehensive and high-complexity care), encompassing structure, process, and outcome metrics across 14 domains.

Recommendations for centers performing pediatric heart surgery in the United States.

Care and outcomes for the more than 40,000 patients undergoing pediatric and congenital heart surgery in the United States annually are known to vary widely. While consensus recommendations have been published across numerous fields as one mechanism to promote a high level of care delivery across centers, it has been more than two decades since the last pediatric heart surgery recommendations were published in the United States. More recent guidance is lacking, and collaborative efforts involving the many disciplines engaged in caring for these children have not been undertaken to date. The present initiative brings together professional societies spanning numerous care domains and congenital cardiac surgeons, pediatric cardiologists, nursing, and other healthcare professionals from diverse programs around the country to develop consensus recommendations for United States centers. The focus of this initial work is on pediatric heart surgery, and it is recommended that future efforts focus in detail on the adult congenital population. We describe the background, rationale, and methodology related to this collaborative effort, and recommendations put forth for Essential Care Centers (essential services necessary for any program), and Comprehensive Care Centers (services to optimize comprehensive and high-complexity care), encompassing structure, process, and outcome metrics across 14 domains.

Recommendations for Centers Performing Pediatric Heart Surgery in the United States.

Care and outcomes for the more than 40,000 patients undergoing pediatric and congenital heart surgery in the United States annually are known to vary widely. While consensus recommendations have been published across numerous fields as one mechanism to promote a high level of care delivery across centers, it has been more than two decades since the last pediatric heart surgery recommendations were published in the United States. More recent guidance is lacking, and collaborative efforts involving the many disciplines engaged in caring for these children have not been undertaken to date. The present initiative brings together professional societies spanning numerous care domains and congenital cardiac surgeons, pediatric cardiologists, nursing, and other healthcare professionals from diverse programs around the country to develop consensus recommendations for United States centers. The focus of this initial work is on pediatric heart surgery, and it is recommended that future efforts focus in detail on the adult congenital population. We describe the background, rationale, and methodology related to this collaborative effort, and recommendations put forth for Essential Care Centers (essential services necessary for any program), and Comprehensive Care Centers (services to optimize comprehensive and high-complexity care), encompassing structure, process, and outcome metrics across 14 domains.

Validation of a novel automated signal analysis tool for ablation of Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: In previous pilot work we demonstrated that a novel automated signal analysis tool could accurately identify successful ablation sites during Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) ablation at a single center. OBJECTIVE: We sought to validate and refine this signal analysis tool in a larger multi-center cohort of children with WPW. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of signal data from children with WPW who underwent ablation at two pediatric arrhythmia centers from 2008-2015. All patients with WPW ≤ 21 years who underwent invasive electrophysiology study and ablation with ablation signals available for review were included. Signals were excluded if temperature or power delivery was inadequate or lesion time was < 5 seconds. Ablation lesions were reviewed for each patient. Signals were classified as successful if there was loss of antegrade and retrograde accessory pathway (AP) conduction or unsuccessful if ablation did not eliminate AP conduction. Custom signal analysis software analyzed intracardiac electrograms for amplitudes, high and low frequency components, integrated area, and signal timing components to create a signal score. We validated the previously published signal score threshold 3.1 in this larger, more diverse cohort and explored additional scoring options. Logistic regression with lasso regularization using Youden's index criterion and a cost-benefit criterion to identify thresholds was considered as a refinement to this score. RESULTS: 347 signals (141 successful, 206 unsuccessful) in 144 pts were analyzed [mean age 13.2 ± 3.9 years, 96 (67%) male, 66 (45%) left sided APs]. The software correctly identified the signals as successful or unsuccessful in 276/347 (80%) at a threshold of 3.1. The performance of other thresholds did not significantly improve the predictive ability. A signal score threshold of 3.1 provided the following diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing a successful from unsuccessful signal: sensitivity 83%, specificity 77%, PPV 71%, NPV 87%. CONCLUSIONS: An automated signal analysis software tool reliably distinguished successful versus unsuccessful ablation electrograms in children with WPW when validated in a large, diverse cohort. Refining the tools using an alternative threshold and statistical method did not improve the original signal score at a threshold of 3.1. This software was effective across two centers and multiple operators and may be an effective tool for ablation of WPW.