Advertisement






Click here for more guidelines.
CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2008; 51:1685-1691, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.01.033
© 2008 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (14)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Berul, C. I.
Right arrow Articles by Friedman, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Berul, C. I.
Right arrow Articles by Friedman, R. A.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article

Results of a Multicenter Retrospective Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Registry of Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease Patients

Charles I. Berul, MD*,*, George F. Van Hare, MD{dagger},{ddagger}, Naomi J. Kertesz, MD§, Anne M. Dubin, MD{dagger}, Frank Cecchin, MD*, Kathryn K. Collins, MD{ddagger}, Bryan C. Cannon, MD§, Mark E. Alexander, MD*, John K. Triedman, MD*, Edward P. Walsh, MD* and Richard A. Friedman, MD§

* Children's Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
{dagger} Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
{ddagger} University of California, San Francisco, California
§ Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.


Figure 1
View larger version (52K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 1 Anatomic Diagnoses of Pediatric and Congenital Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Recipients

Congenital heart disease (CHD) accounts for 46% of total, cardiomyopathies (CM) 23%, and structurally normal hearts (NL) with primary electrical diseases accounting for 31% of all patients. Among CHD patients, diagnoses included tetralogy of Fallot (TOF), transposition of great arteries (TGA), atrial and/or ventricular septal defects, valve abnormalities, single ventricle, Shone's complex, coronary artery congenital anomalies, Ebstein anomaly of tricuspid valve, and others. Cardiomyopathies included hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy (ARVC), left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC), and restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM).

 

Figure 2
View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 2 Electrical Diagnoses of Pediatric ICD Recipients With Structurally Normal Hearts

The majority of patients with primary electrical diseases had long-QT syndrome (LQTS). Smaller subgroups included idiopathic (idio) ventricular fibrillation (VF), catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT), ventricular tachycardia (VT) not otherwise specified (NOS), conduction system disease (cond sys dz), and Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome with atrioventricular block (AVB). ICD = implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 3 Indications for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation, Overall and by Era

There is a significant change in the ratio of primary to secondary prevention indications over time between eras (*p = 0.002 for prevention type by era).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 4 Shock Frequency by Center and Era

The 2 California centers were combined and analyzed as 1 center because they merged electrophysiology programs with overlapping implanting physicians, and also to allow adequate sample size. Appropriate shock frequency by center (top panel) and by era of initial device implantation (middle panel). Overall, secondary indications patients are more likely to have received an appropriate shock than those implanted for primary indications (32% vs. 17%, p < 0.001); however, there were no significant differences between centers. Appropriate shocks were more common in patients implanted in the earlier era (p < 0.05), regardless of indication type. Inappropriate shock frequency by center and overall (bottom panel). The proportion of inappropriate shocks does not differ for primary and secondary indications, and there is no significant difference (p > 0.05) between centers. Center A had a trend toward less inappropriate shocks in secondary indications, but this was also not statistically significant.

 




 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement