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.

Validation of a novel single lead ambulatory ECG monitor - Cardiostat™ - Compared to a standard ECG Holter monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Cardiostat™ is a single lead ambulatory ECG monitor. Recording is made through 2 electrodes positioned in a lead 1-like configuration. We first validated its accuracy for atrial fibrillation detection compared to a 12-lead ECG. In the second phase of the study, arrhythmia detection accuracy was compared between Cardiostat™ ambulatory ECG and a standard 24 h Holter ECG monitoring. METHOD/RESULTS: Phase one of the study included patients undergoing cardioversion for atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter. Cardiostat™ tracings were compared with standard 12-lead ECG. In the second phase, patients undergoing 24 h ambulatory Holter ECG monitoring for control or suspicion of atrial fibrillation (AF) were included. Simultaneous Holter monitoring and Cardiostat™ ECG recordings were performed. Tracings were analysed and compared. Two hundred twelve monitoring were compared. AF was diagnosed in 73 patients. Agreement between Cardiostat™ ECG and standard Holter monitoring was 99% for AF detection with kappa = 0.99. Kappa correlation for atrial flutter detection was only moderate at 0.51. AF burden was similar in both recordings. Noise hindered analysis in a greater proportion with Cardiostat™ compared to Holter ambulatory ECG (8.5 vs 3.8%). CONCLUSION: Cardiostat™ ambulatory ECG device showed excellent correlation with the standard Holter ECG monitoring for AF detection. Holter monitoring was however superior to discriminate premature atrial and ventricular beats and to qualify the morphology of PVCs since it has more vectors for analysis. Added value of Cardiostat™ includes longer monitoring duration, less cumbersome installation and water resistance.

Ambulatory Arrhythmia Detection with ZIO® XT Patch in Pediatric Patients: A Comparison of Devices.

Ambulatory electrocardiogram monitoring devices can be used for 24-72 h to detect arrhythmias. A new device, the ZIO® XT Patch has cardiac monitoring capabilities that can be utilized for up to 14 days. The purpose of this study is to describe duration of ZIO use by age, and to compare its time to arrhythmia detection with the Holter monitor in a pediatric population. A single-center, retrospective review of patients < 18 years of age who underwent clinical investigation with ZIO from October 2014 to February 2016 was performed. An age-matched cohort was utilized to compare ZIO to Holter monitor results. Demographic and diagnostic data, time to first arrhythmia, and arrhythmia burden were analyzed. A total of 406 ZIO were prescribed; median age 12.7 years and 50% male subjects. Median duration of ZIO monitoring significantly increased with age (p < 0.001). 499 Holter monitors were prescribed on a statistically different age group. Arrhythmia detection rates were similar between groups, 10% (n = 42) by ZIO and 9% (n = 45) by Holter (p = NS). The majority of arrhythmias (57%) detected by ZIO were after 24 h (p < 0.0001). All arrhythmias detected by Holter monitor occurred within 24 h (p < 0.0001), mean duration of wear was 24.1 h, range 0.5-48 h. The ZIO® XT Patch may be considered as an ambulatory ECG monitor to diagnose arrhythmia in pediatric patients of all ages. Increasing patient age resulted in increasing duration of ZIO monitoring. Majority of arrhythmias detected with ZIO were identified after 24 h, which would have been missed by other short-term monitors.

Ambulatory diagnostic ECG monitoring for syncope and collapse: An assessment of clinical practice in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic ambulatory electrocardiogram (AECG) monitoring is widely used for evaluating syncope and collapse, and practice guidelines provide recommendations regarding optimal AECG device selection. However, whether physicians utilize AECGs in accordance with the pertinent guidelines is unclear. This study assessed utilization of AECG monitoring systems for syncope and collapse diagnosis by physicians in the United States. METHODS AND RESULTS: A quantitative survey was undertaken of physicians comprising multiple specialties (emergency department, n = 35; primary care, n = 35; hospitalists, n = 30; neurologists, n = 30; nonimplanting, n = 34, and implanting-cardiologists, n = 35). Depending on specialty, respondents reported that neural-reflex and orthostatic causes accounted for 17-23%, cardiac causes for 12-20%, and "neurological causes" (specifically psychogenic pseudo-syncope/pseudo-seizures and acute cerebrovascular conditions) for 7-12% of their syncope/collapse cases. The choice of AECG technology varied by specialty. Thus, despite patients having daily symptoms, 25% of respondents chose an AECG technology other than a Holter-type monitor. Conversely, when monitoring for infrequent events (e.g., less than monthly), 12-18% indicated that they would choose a 24- to 48-hour Holter, 20-34% would choose either a conventional event recorder or a mobile cardiac telemetry system, and only 53-65% would select an insertable cardiac monitor. CONCLUSIONS: In evaluation of syncope/collapse, most U.S. clinicians across specialties use AECGs appropriately, but in a substantial minority there remains discordance between choice of AECG technology and guideline-based recommendations.

2017 ISHNE-HRS expert consensus statement on ambulatory ECG and external cardiac monitoring/telemetry.

Ambulatory ECG (AECG) is very commonly employed in a variety of clinical contexts to detect cardiac arrhythmias and/or arrhythmia patterns which are not readily obtained from the standard ECG. Accurate and timely characterization of arrhythmias is crucial to direct therapies that can have an important impact on diagnosis, prognosis or patient symptom status. The rhythm information derived from the large variety of AECG recording systems can often lead to appropriate and patient-specific medical and interventional management. The details in this document provide background and framework from which to apply AECG techniques in clinical practice, as well as clinical research.

New directions for ambulatory monitoring following 2017 HRS-ISHNE expert consensus.

The main role of ambulatory electrocardiography (AECG) in clinical practice is to detect and characterize the behavior of cardiac electrical activity during ordinary daily life activities. Because certain rhythm abnormalities may be infrequent and paroxysmal, and may occur only during sleep or in association with mental, emotional, or exercise-induced perturbation in cardiac function, AECG needs to be recorded over a long period of time, originally lasting 24h and now expanding up to several weeks and even to months. New technologies for continuous prolonged AECG monitoring, and new algorithms for automatic arrhythmia detection and wireless data transmission in near real-time, have significantly improved the ECG signals quality for long-term recordings and the diagnostic yield for infrequent cardiac arrhythmias. New wireless electrode systems, such as patches, vests or belts have greatly increased the tolerability, quality and feasibility of prolonged AECG, which is particularly useful for the diagnosis of infrequent symptoms, such as unexplained syncope, palpitations or cryptogenic stroke.

Early Detection of Symptomatic Paroxysmal Cardiac Arrhythmias by Trans-Telephonic ECG Monitoring: Impact on Diagnosis and Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnosis of infrequent cardiac arrhythmias (CA) is often unsuccessful using resting or Holter ECG. As early detection and treatment of CA, especially atrial fibrillation (AF), has implications on patients' treatment and outcome, we investigated, whether self-guided, trans-telephonic event-recorder monitoring (Tele-ECG) improves diagnosis and influences treatment options. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2014, 790 patients (54 ± 18 years, 40% male; no history of CA: 582, known AF: 179, other CA: 29) presented with recurrent symptoms suggestive of CA and were screened by Tele-ECG (17.3 ± 26.9 days). A total of 11,775 ECGs were transmitted via a 24-hour telephone hotline including documentation of the respective symptoms. RESULTS: In 73% of patients, CA was documented at the time of symptoms: sinus tachycardia 23%, premature ventricular beats 19%, AF 14%, supraventricular tachycardia 9%, sinus bradycardia 5%, sinus arrhythmia 2%, and AV block II 1%. The mean time until the first symptomatic episode occurred was 6.9 ± 15.3 days (median 2.5 days). The first documented arrhythmia occurred on average after 7.7 ± 14.1 days (median 3 days). In patients with AF (n = 110), 44% was newly diagnosed. According to the Tele-ECG diagnosis, AF ablation was performed in 27% of these patients, 7% electrical cardioversion, and in 30% antiarrhythmic therapy was initiated. In 65% of the patients with recurrence of known AF, (re-)ablation was performed or recommended and in 16% antiarrhythmic therapy was modified. CONCLUSIONS: Tele-ECG monitoring is effective in the diagnosis of suspected symptomatic CA. A diagnosis can usually be achieved within 1 week and has implications on patients' care.

External prolonged electrocardiogram monitoring in unexplained syncope and palpitations: results of the SYNARR-Flash study.

AIMS: SYNARR-Flash study (Monitoring of SYNcopes and/or sustained palpitations of suspected ARRhythmic origin) is an international, multicentre, observational, prospective trial designed to evaluate the role of external 4-week electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring in clinical work-up of unexplained syncope and/or sustained palpitations of suspected arrhythmic origin. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients were enrolled within 1 month after unexplained syncope or palpitations (index event) after being discharged from emergency room or hospitalization without a conclusive diagnosis. A 4-week ECG monitoring was obtained by external high-capacity loop recorder (SpiderFlash-T(®), Sorin) storing patient-activated and auto-triggered tracings. Diagnostic monitorings included (i) conclusive events with reoccurrence of syncope or palpitation with concomitant ECG recording (with/without arrhythmias) and (ii) events with asymptomatic predefined significant arrhythmias (sustained supraventricular or ventricular tachycardia, advanced atrio-ventricular block, sinus bradycardia <30 b.p.m., pauses >6 s). SYNARR-Flash study enrolled 395 patients (57.7% females, 56.9 ± 18.7 years, 28.1% with syncope, and 71.9% with palpitations) from 10 European centres. For syncope, the 4-week diagnostic yield was 24.5%, and predictors of diagnostic events were early start of recording (0-15 vs. >15 days after index event) (OR 6.2, 95% CI 1.3-29.6, P = 0.021) and previous history of supraventricular arrhythmias (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.4-9.7, P = 0.018). For palpitations, the 4-week diagnostic yield was 71.6% and predictors of diagnostic events were history of recurrent palpitations (P < 0.001) and early start of recording (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The 4-week external ECG monitoring can be considered as first-line tool in the diagnostic work-up of syncope and palpitation. Early recorder use, history of supraventricular arrhythmia, and frequent previous events increased the likelihood of diagnostic events during the 4-week external ECG monitoring.