Fluoroscopy-free ablation in congenital heart disease of moderate or great complexity.

BACKGROUND: Fluoroscopy-free (FF) ablation has been demonstrated to be safe and successful in patients with structurally normal hearts, but has not been systematically evaluated in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) of moderate or great (M/G) complexity. This study aimed to evaluate and compare feasibility, safety, and outcomes of FF ablation in patients with or without M/G-CHD. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing electrophysiologic study and intended catheter ablation over a 24-month period were included. Subgroups were created based on presence and complexity of CHD-M/G-CHD or simple complexity/no CHD (S/N-CHD). Cases with total radiation dose of zero qualified as FF. Demographic and peri-procedural variables and outcome data were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 89 procedures were included with 62 comprising the S/N-CHD group and 27 comprising the M/G-CHD group. Of the M/G-CHD patients, 13 had CHD of great complexity (including 6 single ventricle/Fontan and 2 atrial switch patients). Patients with M/G-CHD were older, had higher BMI, had higher incidence of ventricular dysfunction, and greater incidence of complex arrhythmias. Fluoroscopy-free ablation was achieved in 59% of M/G-CHD and 69% of S/N-CHD patients. Both groups had similar rates of acute procedural success, recurrence, and complications. Fluoroscopy was primarily used to visualize pre-existing transvenous leads and peripheral venous anomalies or to guide transbaffle/transseptal puncture. CONCLUSIONS: A fluoroscopy-free ablation approach is feasible, safe, and successful even in patients with M/G-CHD with comparable outcomes to those with S/N-CHD.

Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in a Four-year-old, 16-kg Child.

Leadless pacemakers have an accepted role with demonstrable benefits in adults. In contrast, implant experience and follow-up data in pediatric patients are more limited. Clinical indications and patient candidacy for leadless pacing in pediatrics continue to evolve. We present our experience implanting a leadless pacemaker in a four-year-old for the treatment of high-grade atrioventricular block. Implant considerations in small patients, short-term patient and device follow-up data, and follow-up assessment of the vessel used for implantation are discussed.