CLINICAL RESEARCH: HEART RHYTHM DISORDER
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 , ,
Naomi J. Kertesz, MD ,
Anne M. Dubin, MD,
Frank Cecchin, MD*,
Kathryn K. Collins, MD,
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
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
University of California, San Francisco, California
Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Manuscript received September 10, 2007;
revised manuscript received January 16, 2008,
accepted January 26, 2008.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Charles I. Berul, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital Boston, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115. (Email: charles.berul{at}cardio.chboston.org).
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Objectives: We sought to determine the implications of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement in children and patients with congenital heart disease (CHD).
Background: There is increasing frequency of ICD use in pediatric and CHD patients. Until recently, prospective registry enrollment of ICD patients was not available, and children and CHD patients account for only a small percentage of ICD recipients. Therefore, we retrospectively obtained collaborative data from 4 pediatric centers, aiming to identify implant characteristics, shock frequency, and complications in this unique population.
Methods: Databases from 4 centers were collated in a blinded fashion. Demographic information, implant electrical parameters, appropriate and inappropriate shock data, and complications were recorded for all implants from 1992 to 2004.
Results: A total of 443 patients were included, with a median age of 16 years (range 0 to 54 years) and median weight of 61 kg (range 2 to 130 kg), with 69% having structural heart disease. The most common diagnoses were tetralogy of Fallot (19%) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (14%). Implant indication was primary prevention in 52%. Shock data were available on 409 patients, of whom 105 (26%) received appropriate shocks (mean 4 shocks/patient, range 1 to 29 shocks/patient). Inappropriate shocks occurred in 87 of 409 patients (21%), with a mean of 6 per patient (range 1 to 60), mainly attributable to lead failure (14%), sinus or atrial tachycardias (9%), and/or oversensing (4%).
Conclusions: Children and CHD ICD recipients have significant appropriate and inappropriate shock frequencies. Optimizing programming, medical management, and compliance may diminish inappropriate shocks. Despite concerns regarding generator recalls, lead failure remains the major cause of inappropriate shocks, complications, and system malfunction in children. Prospective assessment of ICD usage in this population may identify additional important factors in pediatric and CHD patients.
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | CHD = congenital heart disease | | ICD = implantable cardioverter-defibrillator |
|
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy was introduced in the 1980s, and over the past few decades, it has been used with increasing frequency in children and patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). Advances in technology have allowed downsizing of devices and leads, making them more suitable for application in children. Until recently, prospective enrollment of ICD patients in a national registry was not available, and children and CHD patients account for only a very small percentage (<1%) of all ICD recipients. Therefore, we sought to retrospectively obtain collaborative data from 4 pediatric ICD implanting centers, aiming to identify implant characteristics, shock frequency, and long-term complications in this unique patient population. There have been prior pediatric reports of ICD use in children, mainly involving either mining and subset extraction from manufacturers' databases or relatively small single-center descriptive reports (Table 1) (1–14). One collaborative study published in 1993 from members of the Pediatric Electrophysiology Society (1) initially contacted manufacturers to identify patients under 20 years of age and then obtain additional clinical details on 125 of these early-era ICD patients from their physicians. These clinical series highlight some of the unique issues related to patient selection, implantation techniques, programming, and complications in this population. The purpose of the present study is to examine a current-era cohort using a long-term multicenter retrospective approach to identify a large group of pediatric and CHD patients with ICDs.
|
Methods
|
|---|
Databases from 4 centers were reviewed and collated in a blinded fashion for review by the investigators. Local investigational review board approval was obtained at each site. Two of the centers were combined because they had overlapping physician implanters and to allow adequate subgroup sample size. The databases were queried for pediatric and adult CHD patients with ICDs implanted between March 1992 and March 2004 to allow sufficient time after device implantation for observation of shocks and complications. Demographic information, implant electrical parameters, appropriate and inappropriate shock data, and complications were recorded for all implants occurring within the specified time frame. Demographics included patient age, weight, gender, anatomic diagnosis, and electrical diagnosis. The implant data included type of ICD, type of lead, indication for implant, electrical parameters, and defibrillation threshold when available. The indications for implantation and other implant data were determined contemporaneously at each center from available records at time of implant and were then retrospectively adjudicated by chart review. The shock data included the receipt of any shocks (whether appropriate or inappropriate), number of shocks per episode, number of episodes shocked, time of shock since ICD implanted, and whether the shock was successful at converting rhythm. Shock data were also assessed by era of implant, divided into 2 equal groups. In addition, shock data were subanalyzed by implanting center to investigate variances in implant indications. Complications were compiled by time since implant and divided into acute (within 30 days of ICD implant) and chronic complications.
Statistics.
Continuous variables were expressed as medians and ranges. Comparisons between medians were made with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Event data (shock frequency) were analyzed using the chi-square or Fisher exact test depending on sample size. Multivariable analysis (comparisons between centers) used analysis of variance, with Scheffe's subgroup testing where appropriate. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant for individual comparisons.
|
Results
|
|---|
Demographics.
Over the 12-year study period, a total of 443 patients were included, with a median age of 16 years (mean age 18 years, range 0 to 54 years) and median weight of 61 kg (mean 61.3 ± 22.9 kg, range 2 to 130 kg). The mean height of subjects at time of first ICD implant was 160.7 ± 21.3 cm, and mean body surface area was 1.64 ± 0.4 m2. A total of 307 patients (69%) had structural heart disease, including various types of CHD (46%) or cardiomyopathy (23%) (Fig. 1). The most common structural diagnoses seen were tetralogy of Fallot (19%) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (14%). Primary electrical diseases with a structurally normal heart, such as long-QT syndrome, Brugada syndrome, and catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, accounted for 31% of patients (Fig. 2). There were 7 infants who underwent first ICD implantation at <1 year of age (Table 2). Adult patients (age >21 years) accounted for 111 of 443 patients (25%) and, not surprisingly, were much more likely to have CHD (n = 96; 86%) compared with dilated or hypertrophic cardiomyopathies (n = 11) or primary electrical diseases (n = 4).
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).
|
|
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.
|
|
Implant characteristics.
The indications for ICD implantation were primary prevention in 231 patients (52%) and secondary prevention in 212 patients (48%). There was some variation in implant indications between centers and over time, with primary prevention indications more prevalent in the recent era (years 2000 to 2004) compared with the first half of the study group (Fig. 3). The ICD generator type selected was single-chamber in 186 patients (42%) and dual-chamber in 257 patients (58%). The defibrillator lead type was overwhelmingly active-fixation (429 patients, 97%), with only 14 patients receiving passive-fixation ICD leads at initial implant. The leads were single-coil in 199 patients (45%) and dual-coil in 244 patients (55%). There were no implant procedure-related deaths.
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).
|
|
Shocks.
Appropriate Shocks
Defibrillation therapy for a ventricular arrhythmia faster than the programmed detection criteria, and accurately detected by the ICD, was categorized as an appropriate shock. Information regarding shocks was available on 409 of 443 patients (92%) in the databases, of whom 105 patients (26%) received appropriate shocks, at a mean of 4 shocks per patient (median 2, range 1 to 29). Appropriate shocks were more common in patients who received an ICD for secondary prevention (32%) compared with primary prevention (18%, p < 0.001). Although most patients who received an appropriate shock did so within the first 5 years, 7 patients (7%) did not receive a shock until after receiving their second ICD generator at a mean of 5.5 years after their initial ICD implantation. When evaluation was between implant eras, appropriate shocks occurred more commonly among those implanted from 1992 to 1999 (35%) compared with 2000 to 2004 (20%, p < 0.05). Obviously, this difference is at least partially accounted for by the differences in length of follow-up between the 2 cohorts, as well as differences in implant indications and disease severity. These trends for implant indication and implant era were similar among all of the individual study centers (Fig. 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.
|
|
In an attempt to distinguish clinical differences between children and adult congenital ICD patients, the shock frequency was analyzed by age. Overall, appropriate shocks were observed in 66 of 290 (23%) pediatric patients (age <18 years) and in 39 of 119 (33%) patients over age 18 years in this cohort (p < 0.05, chi-square test). There were no differences seen in subgroup testing among different diagnostic categories (primary electrical diseases vs. congenital heart disease vs. cardiomyopathies) for either pediatric or adult patients.
Inappropriate Shocks
Defibrillation therapy received for anything other than a ventricular arrhythmia faster than the programmed detection criteria was categorized as an inappropriate shock. Inappropriate shocks occurred in 87 of 409 patients (21%), with a mean of 6 inappropriate shocks per patient (median 4, range 1 to 60), mainly attributable to lead failure (14%), sinus or atrial tachycardias (9%), and/or oversensing (4%). Inappropriate shocks occurred with similar frequency for primary versus secondary implant indications, and there were no differences when analyzed by centers. When analyzed by age groups, 70 of 290 (24%) pediatric patients (age <18 years) experienced at least 1 inappropriate shock, compared with only 17 of 119 (14%) adult patients over 18 years old (p < 0.05, chi-square test). In pediatric subgroup analysis, an inappropriate shock was less likely to have been received in cardiomyopathy patients (13%) compared with primary electrical disease (31%) or congenital heart disease (28%) patients (p < 0.01).
Following an inappropriate shock that was not related to lead problems, specific clinical interventions included 1) encouraging better compliance with medications such as beta-blockers; 2) initiation of an antiarrhythmic medication; 3) catheter ablation for atrial flutter; or 4) device reprogramming, such as tachycardia detection rates, R-wave sensing, blanking periods, and use of tachycardia discrimination algorithms. Multiple interventions were performed in some of these patients (sometimes simultaneously), precluding analysis of the effect of specific changes. However, following these overall clinical management strategies, there were less frequent shocks among the cohort, particularly for sinus tachycardia, and the inappropriate shock frequency was markedly reduced or eliminated for some individual subjects.
Complications.
A total of 64 acute complications occurred in 55 patients during the first 30 days after implant (Table 3). Of these, most directly resulted from the initial implantation surgery, such as lead placement issues, infections, bleeding, and vascular problems. The chronic complications were more difficult to fully ascertain, but at least a lower boundary was identified, as not all follow-up complications may have been documented. The majority of chronic complications related to lead issues, including conductor fractures, insulation breaches, and changes in electrical characteristics. There was not any specific manufacturer or model of lead that had a higher failure rate in this series. In addition, there was no obvious trend toward a difference in lead failure rates by subgroup analysis for lead type or approach (transvenous vs. epicardial, subcutaneous, pericardial, or nonstandard implants), although the number of patients with nonstandard lead implant approaches was underpowered to determine statistical significance. There were no associations between specific manufacturers' advisories and lead failures. Generator-related problems that necessitated reoperation were notably uncommon, occurring in only 3 of 443 patients (0.68%) over the 12-year study period.
Mortality.
Among the study cohort, there was a total of 18 deaths (4% all-cause mortality) during follow-up, of which only 4 (1%) were known to be sudden cardiac death or documented fatal arrhythmia. The nonsudden deaths were attributed to progressive congestive heart failure, pulmonary embolism, cerebrovascular accident, or unknown (nonsudden) etiology. A total of 16 patients (3.6%) underwent orthotopic heart transplant at some point following their ICD implantation. They did not receive a new ICD system during or following transplant, and 3 of these 16 patients subsequently died after transplantation.
|
Discussion
|
|---|
Large, prospective double-blinded trials to assess the safety and efficacy of ICD therapy in adults have proven the value of ICDs in a variety of disease substrates, including post-myocardial infarction, ischemia, and cardiomyopathies (15–18). Implant indications and guidelines have been developed to appropriately determine who is a good ICD candidate for both primary and secondary prevention (19,20). The sheer volume of adult patients in these studies dwarfs the pediatric ICD experience, where sudden cardiac death is fortunately relatively uncommon (except perhaps in untreated channelopathies and malignant myocarditis/cardiomyopathies). However, the rarity of diseases and cardiac events also makes determining the appropriate indications for therapy diagnostically challenging. The impact of receiving an ICD may be more substantial in a young patient, who may live for decades after initial device implantation and would be subject to multiple procedures for generator replacements and lead revisions/extractions (21,22). These additional procedures significantly increase the complexity of decision-making, increase costs, and likely increase psychosocial stressors related to ICD therapy (23,24). In addition, assessing the safety and efficacy is hindered by the sample size necessary to achieve adequate statistical power, which has previously limited the ramifications and conclusions of prior pediatric ICD series.
The small retrospective series in pediatrics do suggest a potential benefit to ICD therapy in children. Particularly in patients implanted for secondary prevention, there is a high reported rate of appropriate shocks, at least some of which can be presumed to be lifesaving. Silka et al. (1) surveyed members of the Pediatric Electrophysiology Society in the early 1990s regarding their ICD patients, and reported 125 patients under age 20 years implanted with an ICD, predominantly following resuscitated sudden death (76%), drug-refractory ventricular tachycardia (10%), or syncope in patients with structural heart disease and inducible sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias. This relatively early series of pediatric ICD patients implanted before 1992 included a preponderance of epicardial ICD systems, and they had a high appropriate shock rate (68% over 31 ± 23 month follow-up). Interestingly, similar to recent adult studies, the main predictor of mortality among these patients was impaired ventricular function (1). Gradaus et al. (7) reported a survival benefit in children with ICDs by comparing the difference between the curves for death versus the combined end point of death plus recurrences of fast symptomatic ventricular tachycardia. However, despite a high rate of appropriate shocks for ventricular arrhythmias, 2 of 25 children died (including 1 death from ICD patch electrode erosion), and they had a high rate of inappropriate shocks: 28% in the first year and 49% by 5 years of follow-up (7). Previous studies have shown a higher rate of complications and technical difficulties related to ICD implantation and management in the pediatric population. A comparison study by Link et al. (4) found a significantly higher complication rate in pediatric versus adult ICD recipients implanted at the same institution. In a smaller study, Goel et al. (8) reported their experience with ICD therapy for children with long-QT syndrome and observed appropriate therapies in 5 of 12 patients, inappropriate shocks in 4 of 12, 2 complications, and 1 death after electrical storm. Korte et al. (9) categorized shocks in pediatric ICD recipients as appropriate in 15 of 20 patients (75%) and inappropriate in 10 of 20 patients (50%), attributable mainly to supraventricular tachycardia, T-wave oversensing, or lead failure. Alexander et al. (6) reported a 38% complication rate over 2-year follow-up in 76 pediatric and young adult ICD patients (who are included in the present series), including infection, lead failure, and potential for electrical storm. In that study, growth was strongly associated with lead failure, with a change in body surface area having the highest hazard ratio. Eicken et al. (13) reviewed 16 patients who received an ICD and found 7 of the 16 (44%) received appropriate therapies, whereas 4 (25%) received inappropriate shocks. In a recent study including 22 children with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who received an ICD (14), only 4 (18%) received appropriate shocks, and 4 also received 1 or more inappropriate shocks; complications were reported for 3 of 22 patients. Increased recognition of the risks of ICD lead fractures and inappropriate shocks have led to the development of novel implantation techniques and leadless ICD systems for small children and patients with complex congenital heart disease (25–27). Several investigators (27,28) have described subcutaneous coil placement around the heart, as well as in the pericardium.
The present multicenter retrospective study demonstrates the heterogeneity of pediatric and congenital heart ICD recipients and highlights important issues related to growth and development. The results from this study confirm that children and CHD patients who are ICD recipients have significant appropriate and inappropriate shock frequencies. With 105 patients (26%) receiving a mean of 4 appropriate shocks each, it is highly probable that at least some of these shocks were potentially lifesaving, although the study design does not allow a determination of hemodynamic compromise from the ventricular arrhythmias or the impact of ICDs on overall survival benefit. However, the overall all-cause mortality rate of 4% and sudden cardiac death rate of 1% over a relatively long follow-up period (mean 7.5 years, range 1 to 20 years) were strikingly low compared with similar adult ICD patient series (15–17). This finding substantiates the perceived concerns regarding the long-term impact of receiving an ICD and exposure to chronic device-related and procedure-related complications such as lead failure and extraction.
The relatively high rate of inappropriate shocks and complications, similar to that observed in smaller pediatric series, increases the morbidity of ICD therapy in children, balancing the risk-benefit ratio. The finding of higher inappropriate shock rates in children versus adults with congenital heart disease supports the hypothesis that continued growth and activity place increased strain on ICD leads, rather than the alternative that the congenital heart disease is a primary risk factor. Therefore, clarification of proper indications for implantation is critical for determining the optimal pediatric candidates for ICD therapy. We suggest that careful attention to optimizing device programming, medical management, and encouraging compliance with prescribed therapies and recommendations may diminish inappropriate shock frequency in this unique patient population.
Study limitations.
The limitations of this retrospective multicenter study include practice variations between centers; differences in implant threshold and indications for ICD; variations between operators in implantation techniques and programming; and variances in case mix, ages, presence, and complexity of CHD. The follow-up design did not capture the time to each appropriate shock for all patients, limiting the ability to perform a time-dependent analysis of ICD therapies. Finally, although shock data was determined for 92% of subjects, the chronic follow-up and late complications are likely not comprehensively reported for all patients.
|
Conclusions
|
|---|
This is the largest series of pediatric and congenital heart ICD patients reported to date. It is a heterogeneous group with a wide age range (infant through adult) and broad mix of diagnoses. The threshold for prescribing an ICD in the pediatric and congenital heart population appears to have lowered over time. The indications for implantation are clearly different from most adult ICD series, which have a preponderance of ischemic heart disease and post-infarction patients. Despite these differences, young ICD patients have a significant rate of shocks, both appropriate and inappropriate. However, although recent concerns regarding ICD generator recalls and manufacturers' advisories have generated significant public concern (29,30), lead failure actually remains the dominant mode of inappropriate shocks, complications, and system malfunction in children. Future directions that may identify additional important factors include a prospective pediatric ICD registry and consensus development of guidelines and definitions in pediatric and congenital heart ICD recipients.
|
Acknowledgments
|
|---|
The authors appreciate the biostatistical assistance from Kimberlee Gauvreau, PhD, and they thank Elizabeth Stephenson, MD, and Stephen Seslar, MD, for help with database organization and critical review of the study.
|
Footnotes
|
|---|
Dr. Friedman received support for this project in part by industry funding from Medtronic, Inc., Boston Scientific (Guidant) Corp., and St. Jude Medical CRMD. Dr. Berul previously received grant support from Medtronic, Inc., Boston Scientific (Guidant) Corp., and St. Jude Medical CRMD. Drs. Berul, Cecchin, Alexander, Triedman, and Walsh are supported by the Boston Children's Heart Foundation. This study was approved and facilitated by the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES).
|
References
|
|---|
1. Silka MJ, Kron J, Dunnigan A, Dick M, The Pediatric Electrophysiology Society Sudden cardiac death and the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in pediatric patients Circulation 1993;87:800-807.[Abstract/Free Full Text]2. Kron J, Silka MJ, Ohm OJ, Bardy G, Benditt D. Use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the congenital long QT syndrome Am J Cardiol 1996;78:703-706.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 3. Hamilton RM, Dorian P, Gow RM, Williams WG. Five-year experience with implantable defibrillators in children Am J Cardiol 1996;77:524-526.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 4. Link MS, Hill SL, Cliff DL, et al. Comparison of frequency of complications of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in children versus adults Am J Cardiol 1999;83:263-266.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 5. Stefanelli CB, Bradley DJ, Leroy S, et al. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy for life-threatening arrhythmias in young patients J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2002;6:235-244.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 6. Alexander ME, Cecchin F, Walsh EP, Triedman JK, Bevilacqua LM, Berul CI. Implications of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in congenital heart disease and pediatrics J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2004;15:72-76.[Web of Science][Medline] 7. Gradaus R, Wollmann C, Köbe J, et al. Potential benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in children and young adolescents Heart 2004;90:328-329.[Free Full Text] 8. Goel AK, Berger S, Pelech A, Dhala A. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in children with long QT syndrome Pediatr Cardiol 2004;25:370-378.[Web of Science][Medline] 9. Werner B, Przybylski A, Kucinska B, Lewandowski M, Szwed H, Wroblewska-Kaluzewska M. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in children Kardiol Pol 2004;60:239-246.[Medline] 10. Korte T, Koditz H, Niehaus M, Paul T, Tebbenjohanns J. High incidence of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies in children and adolescents with implantable cardioverter defibrillator Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2004;27:924-932.[CrossRef][Medline] 11. Ten Harkel AD, Blom NA, Reimer AG, Tukkie R, Sreeram N, Bink-Boelkens MT. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation in children in The Netherlands Eur J Pediatr 2005;164:436-441.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 12. Apitz C, Gass M, Dornberger V, Kuehlkamp V, Hofbeck M. The use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) in children and adolescents Klin Pediatr 2006;218:270-275.[CrossRef] 13. Eicken A, Kolb C, Lange S, et al. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in children Int J Cardiol 2006;107:30-35.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 14. Kaski JP, Tome Esteban MT, Lowe, MD, et al. Outcomes after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator treatment in children with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy Heart 2007;93:372-374.[Free Full Text] 15. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, et al. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial Investigators Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia N Engl J Med 1996;335:1933-1940.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 16. Buxton AE, Lee KL, Fisher JD, Josephson ME, Prystowsky EN, Hafley G, Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial Investigators A randomized study of the prevention of sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease N Engl J Med 1999;341:1882-1890.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 17. Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, et al. Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial I. Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 2005;352:225-237.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 18. Maron BJ, Shen WK, Link MS, et al. Efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for the prevention of sudden death in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy N Engl J Med 2000;342:365-373.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 19. Gregoratos G, Abrams J, Epstein AE, et al. ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 guideline update for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrhythmia devices. Summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/NASPE Committee to Update the 1998 Pacemaker Guidelines). J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:1703-1719.[Free Full Text] 20. Hauer RN, Aliot E, Block M, et al. European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Arrhythmias and Working Group on Cardiac PacingStudy Group on Guidelines on ICDs of the Working Group on Arrhythmias and the Working Group on Cardiac Pacing of the European Society of Cardiology Indications for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy Eur Heart J 2001;22:1074-1081.[Free Full Text] 21. Love CJ, Wilkoff BL, Byrd CL, et al. Recommendations for extraction of chronically implanted transvenous pacing and defibrillator leads: indications, facilities, training. North American Society of Pacing & Electrophysiology Lead Extraction Conference faculty. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2000;23:544-551.[CrossRef][Medline] 22. Cooper JM, Stephenson EA, Berul CI, Walsh EP, Epstein LM. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead complications and laser extraction in children and young adults with congenital heart disease: implications for implantation and management J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2003;14:344-349.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 23. Sears SF, Conti JB. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for children and young adolescents: mortality benefit confirmed—what's next? Heart 2004;90:241-242.[Free Full Text] 24. DeMaso DR, Lauretti A, Spieth L, et al. Psychosocial factors and quality of life in children and adolescents with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators Am J Cardiol 2004;93:582-587.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 25. Berul CI, Triedman JK, Forbess J, et al. Minimally invasive cardioverter defibrillator implantation for children: an animal model and pediatric case report Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2001;24:1789-1794.[CrossRef][Medline] 26. Gradaus R, Hammel D, Kotthoff S, Bocker D. Nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement in children: use of subcutaneous array leads and abdominally placed implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2001;12:356-360.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 27. Stephenson EA, Batra AS, Knilans TK, et al. A multicenter experience with novel implantable cardioverter defibrillator configurations in the pediatric and congenital heart disease population J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2006;17:41-46.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 28. Cannon BC, Friedman RA, Fenrich AL, Fraser CD, McKenzie ED, Kertesz NJ. Innovative techniques for placement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads in patients with limited venous access to the heart Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2006;29:181-187.[CrossRef][Medline] 29. Maisel WH, Sweeney MO, Stevenson WG, Ellison KE, Epstein LM. Recalls and safety alerts involving pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generators JAMA 2001;286:793-799.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 30. Hauser RG, Hayes DL, Epstein AE, et al. Multicenter experience with failed and recalled implantable cardioverter-defibrillator pulse generators Heart Rhythm 2006;3:640-644.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Related Article
-
Inside This Issue of JACC
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2008 51: A31-A32.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
D. T. Hsu and G. D. Pearson
Heart Failure in Children: Part II: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Future Directions
Circ Heart Fail,
September 1, 2009;
2(5):
490 - 498.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T.-Y. Hsia, S. M. Bradley, M. J. LaPage, S. Whelan, J. P. Saul, J. M. Ringewald, and J. H. Reed
Novel Minimally Invasive, Intrapericardial Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Coil System: A Useful Approach to Arrhythmia Therapy in Children
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
April 1, 2009;
87(4):
1234 - 1239.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. N. DeMaria, O. Ben-Yehuda, J. J. Bax, G. K. Feld, B. H. Greenberg, W. Y.W. Lew, J. A.C. Lima, A. S. Maisel, S. M. Narayan, D. J. Sahn, et al.
Highlights of the Year in JACC 2008.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
January 27, 2009;
53(4):
373 - 398.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E. Deanfield, R. Yates, F. J. Meijboom, and B. J.M. Mulder
CHAPTER 10 Congenital Heart Disease in Children and Adults
ESC Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine,
January 1, 2009;
2(1):
med-9780199566990-chapter - med-9780199566990-chapter.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Silka and Y. Bar-Cohen
Should patients with congenital heart disease and a systemic ventricular ejection fraction less than 30% undergo prophylactic implantation of an ICD?: Patients With Congenital Heart Disease and a Systemic Ventricular Ejection Fraction Less Than 30% Should Undergo Prophylactic Implantation of an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol,
October 1, 2008;
1(4):
298 - 306.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. K. Triedman
Should patients with congenital heart disease and a systemic ventricular ejection fraction less than 30% undergo prophylactic implantation of an ICD?: Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation Guidelines Based Solely on Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Do Not Apply to Adults With Congenital Heart Disease
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol,
October 1, 2008;
1(4):
307 - 316.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Tomaske, R. Pretre, M. Rahn, and U. Bauersfeld
Epicardial and pleural lead ICD systems in children and adolescents maintain functionality over 5 years
Europace,
October 1, 2008;
10(10):
1152 - 1156.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. I. Berul
Congenital Long-QT Syndromes: Who's at Risk for Sudden Cardiac Death?
Circulation,
April 29, 2008;
117(17):
2178 - 2180.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
Top
Abstract
Methods