Saarel, Elizabeth V

BACKGROUND: Whether vigorous exercise increases risk of ventricular arrhythmias for individuals diagnosed and treated for congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) remains unknown. METHODS: The National Institutes of Health–funded LIVE-LQTS study (Lifestyle and Exercise in the Long QT Syndrome) prospectively enrolled individuals 8 to 60 years of age with phenotypic and/or genotypic LQTS from 37 sites in 5 countries from May 2015 to February 2019. Participants (or parents) answered physical activity and clinical events surveys every 6 months for 3 years with follow-up completed in February 2022. Vigorous exercise was defined as ≥6 metabolic equivalents for >60 hours per year. A blinded Clinical Events Committee adjudicated the composite end point of sudden death, sudden cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmia treated by an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and likely arrhythmic syncope. A National Death Index search ascertained vital status for those with incomplete follow-up. A noninferiority hypothesis (boundary of 1.5) between vigorous exercisers and others was tested with multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Among the 1413 participants (13% <18 years of age, 35% 18–25 years of age, 67% female, 25% with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, 90% genotype positive, 49% with LQT1, 91% were treated with beta-blockers, left cardiac sympathetic denervation, and/or implantable cardioverter defibrillator), 52% participated in vigorous exercise (55% of these competitively). Thirty-seven individuals experienced the composite end point (including one sudden cardiac arrest and one sudden death in the nonvigorous group, one sudden cardiac arrest in the vigorous group) with overall event rates at 3 years of 2.6% in the vigorous and 2.7% in the nonvigorous exercise groups. The unadjusted hazard ratio for experience of events for the vigorous group compared with the nonvigorous group was 0.97 (90% CI, 0.57–1.67), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.17 (90% CI, 0.67–2.04). The upper 95% one-sided confidence level extended beyond the 1.5 boundary. Neither vigorous or nonvigorous exercise was found to be superior in any group or subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals diagnosed with phenotypic and/or genotypic LQTS who were risk assessed and treated in experienced centers, LQTS-associated cardiac event rates were low and similar between those exercising vigorously and those not exercising vigorously. Consistent with the low event rate, CIs are wide, and noninferiority was not demonstrated. These data further inform shared decision-making discussions between patient and physician about exercise and competitive sports participation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02549664.

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.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.