Bar‐Cohen, Yaniv

Abstract Background Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are an important therapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Data on transvenous (TV) ICD therapy rates, complications, and system survival in children ≤ 21 years is limited by absolute numbers and inclusion of adults with congenital heart disease. Purpose To determine ICD therapy rates and complications in pediatric patients ≤ 21 years of age. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Medline, Embase, PubMed Ahead-of-Print and in-process records, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for full-text articles on pediatric ICD. Articles were assessed for inclusion by two authors via a consensus process; the exclusion criteria included: case reports, review articles, abstracts, editorials, articles not in English, articles solely on epicardial or subcutaneous leads, articles on unrelated topics, articles with <50% ICD leads, and articles with any patients >21 years old. Data were extracted by 1 author and verified by a 2nd author. Meta-analysis of aggregate data was performed, where possible. Random effects models were used for pooled inferences. All reported rates are annualized rates based on reported follow-up times in each study. Results Of 1325 articles, 23 met all inclusion and no exclusion criteria (Figure) representing 1700 patients implanted from 1987-2020. The average age of patients was 12.8 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.9 – 13.7) with weight of 51.1 kg (95% CI: 42.2 – 60.0) (Table). Primary prevention was the indication in 56.4 % (95% CI: 45.0% – 67.7%). Only 14.8% (95% CI: 10.6% – 19.0%) of the patients had congenital heart disease while 22.6% (95% CI: 15.8% – 29.3%) had long QT syndrome. The annualized rate of appropriate shock was 7.0% (95% CI: 5.6% – 8.8%) and the rate of inappropriate shock was 4.8% (95% CI: 3.8% – 6.0%). Annualized rates of reported adverse events included lead failure: 2.3% (95% CI: 1.6% – 3.3%) and infection: 0.8% (95% CI: 0.4% – 1.6%), which could have led to system revision: 4.4% (95% CI: 2.1% – 9.4%). The all-cause mortality rate was 0.8% (95% CI: 0.6% – 1.2%) across 17 studies. In 9 studies with 719 patients, the heart transplant rate was 1.6% (95% CI: 0.6% – 3.9%). Conclusion In this first systematic review and meta-analysis of ICDs in pediatric patients, ICD therapy was effective for prevention of SCD with a 7.0% annualized rate of appropriate ICD shocks. This is comparable to the annualized rate of appropriate ICD shock for secondary prevention of SCD in adult randomized controlled trials. Most common adverse events in the pediatric population were lead failure and system revision. Further refinements in patient selection criteria for implantation and improvements in lead and device technology are needed for pediatric patients.FigureTable

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in children and congenital heart disease (CHD) patients is hampered by poor long-term lead survival. Lead extraction is technically difficult and carries substantial morbidity. Manufacturers developed distinct strategies for this issue: thinner lead bodies or a Gore ePTFE coil coating. Both design changes were thought to improve ease of lead removal, but have not been directly compared in children or adults. The purpose of this study was to assess thin and ePTFE-coated ICD lead survival in pediatric and CHD pts. Methods: The Pediatric Lead Extractability and Survival Evaluation (PLEASE) Study began as a Phase IV multicenter open-label prospective study [ NCT00335036 ], facilitated by the Pediatric & Congenital EP Society. Initially designed as a randomized study, it changed to a parallel assignment registry when 1 lead had an advisory due to high incidence of failure, prompting concern about continued clinical equipoise. Pediatric and CHD pts who underwent ICD lead implant from 2005-2010 were eligible. The end date was NCDR ICD Registry v2.0 release (includes pediatric & lead data). 23 centers participated; each site obtained IRB approval. De-identified data was sent to the PI center for verification and statistical analyses. Results: A total of 982 ICD pts (357 VVI, 558 DDD, 67 CRT-D) entered the PLEASE study, incl. 423 pts (43%) with CHD. Mean age at implant = 18.3 ± 9.9 yrs. Thin (< 7Fr) ICD leads accounted for 51%, 23% were ePTFE-coated, 26% neither thin nor coated. There were 113 ICD lead failures (11.5%) at a mean lead-age of 2.2 ± 1.7 yrs, causing shocks in 55 pts. Failure occurred in 21% of thin leads vs 3.5% of ePTFE leads (p<0.01). Extraction was performed on 142 (14.5%) leads overall; 21% of thin leads (incl. extraction of 29 functioning leads due to recall) vs. 4.4% of ePTFE leads (p<0.01). There were 7 major extraction complications (4.9%), but no procedural mortality. Among thin leads, 90/270 (33.3%) of recalled leads failed vs 15/229 (6.6%) non-recalled thin leads. Conclusions: This Phase IV study demonstrates that ICD leads in children and CHD pts have suboptimal performance overall. Thinner leads were much more likely to fail and/or be extracted compared with ePTFE leads, chiefly driven by one lead type.

Background There are few US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved devices specifically aimed at the pediatric patient with arrhythmia. This has led to a high off‐label utilization of devices in this vulnerable population. The Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES), the international organization representing pediatric and congenital heart disease arrhythmia specialists, developed a task force to comprehensively address device development issues relevant to pediatric patients with congenital arrhythmia. Methods and Results As a first step, the taskforce developed a 26‐question survey for the pediatric arrhythmia community to assess providers’ understanding of the FDA approval process, specifically in regard to pediatric labeling. There were 92/211 respondents (44%) with a >90% completion rate. The vast majority of respondents believed there was a paucity of devices available for children (96%). More than 60% of respondents stated that they did not understand the FDA regulatory process and were not aware of whether the devices they used were labeled for pediatric use. Conclusions Pediatric electrophysiologists are keenly aware of the deficit of available pediatric devices for their patients. The majority do not understand the FDA approval process and could benefit from additional educational resources regarding this. A collaborative forum including PACES, FDA, patients and their families, and Industry would be an important next step in clarifying opportunities and priorities to serve this vulnerable population.