Surgical approaches to epicardial pacemaker placement: does pocket location affect lead survival?

Permanent cardiac pacing in pediatric patients presents challenges related to small patient size, complex anatomy, electrophysiologic abnormalities, and limited access to cardiac chambers. Epicardial pacing currently remains the conventional technique for infants and patients with complex congenital heart disease. Pacemaker lead failure is the major source of failure for such epicardial systems. The authors hypothesized that a retrocostal surgical approach would reduce the rate of lead failure due to fracture compared with the more traditional subrectus and subxiphoid approaches. To evaluate this hypothesis, a retrospective chart review analyzed patients with epicardial pacemaker systems implanted or followed at Rady Children's Hospital San Diego between January 1980 and May 2007. The study cohort consisted of 219 patients and a total of 620 leads with epicardial pacemakers. Among these patients, 84% had structural congenital heart disease, and 45% were younger than 3 years at time of the first implantation. The estimated lead survival was 93% at 2 years and 83% at 5 years. The majority of leads failed due to pacing problems (54%), followed by lead fracture (31%) and sensing problems (14%). When lead failure was adjusted for length of follow-up period, no significant differences in the rates of failure by pocket location were found.

Do paediatric cardiologists discuss cardiovascular risk factors with patients and their families?

Atherosclerotic disease of the heart likely has its origins in childhood. The promotion of cardiovascular health in children, however, has been studied only for those practicing in general paediatrics. We hypothesised that paediatric cardiologists do not consistently discuss cardiovascular risk factors with patients and their families. We therefore, carried out a nationwide survey of paediatric cardiologists to determine how often they discussed atherosclerosis and 4 modifiable risk factors, specifically weight, smoking, diet and nutrition, and physical activity. Only two-fifths reported that they discussed atherosclerotic disease frequently to always. For patients with cardiovascular disease, weight was discussed frequently to always by 59%, smoking by 61%, diet and nutrition by 63%, and physical activity by 92%. In contrast, for patients without cardiovascular disease, weight was discussed frequently to always by 35%, smoking by 46%, diet and nutrition by 39%, and physical activity by 62%. These differences are statistically significant (p < 0.003 by chi2 analysis). Cardiovascular risk factors were discussed more consistently as children grew older (p < 0.0001). Respondents stated that, in their opinion, the promotion of cardiovascular health was a role more appropriate for providers of primary care than for paediatric cardiologists (p < 0.0001). Constraints of time, and the perceived role of the cardiologist, were the most common barriers to anticipatory guidance. We suggest that these findings indicate that paediatric cardiologists can assume a more prominent role in preventive cardiology and education, although their precise role or roles, and the optimal methods of anticipatory guidance, remain controversial.