This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Background: Heart Rhythm Society guidelines outlining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) excluded children and epicardial or abandoned leads due to theoretical risks of harm. Research investigating these risks is lacking. The primary objective of our study is to determine the incidence of adverse events to patients or CIEDs from MRI imaging. The secondary objective is to describe CIED-related artifact on MRI images. Methods: A single-center retrospective review was performed on all patients with CIEDs who underwent 1.5 Tesla MRI between July 2007 and May 2019. We subdivided patients among four cohorts: (1) patients <18 years of age, (2) epicardial leads, (3) abandoned endocardial leads, and (4) abandoned epicardial leads. Descriptive statistics pre-and post-MRI and at follow-up within 1.5 years were conducted. Results: Fifty-four MRIs were performed on 40 patients. Median age was 21.2 years (IQR 12.0-25.0). Eighteen (33%) MRIs contained abandoned leads; 20 (37%) contained epicardial leads. Three patients, one with abandoned epicardial leads and two with abandoned endocardial leads, experienced mild discomfort at the CIED site. One adult with endocardial leads experienced a pause in the heart rate while programmed in a nonpacing mode. No clinically important changes to CIED parameters occurred. Nine MRIs (17%), especially those with functional cardiac imaging, were uninterpretable due to image artifact. Conclusion: In this study, pediatric and adult CHD patients with CIEDs, many with epicardial or abandoned leads, underwent MRIs without clinically significant complications. In some, CIED artifact reduced cardiac MRI image quality due to CIED position.

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consenus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology, (ACC) and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate follow-up in pediatric patients.

IV sotalol is an effective antiarrhythmic option for pediatric patients and may be an excellent agent for acute termination of active arrhythmias. It was well tolerated, with no patient requiring discontinuation secondary to adverse effects.

Treatment of the large patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in the setting of pulmonary hypertension (PH) is challenging. Left patent, the large PDA can result in irreversible pulmonary vascular disease. Occlusion, however, may lead to right ventricular failure for certain patients with severe PH. Our center has adopted a staged management strategy using medical management, noninvasive imaging, and invasive cardiac catheterization to treat PH in the presence of a large PDA. This approach determines the safety of ductal closure but also leverages medical therapy to create an opportunity for safe PDA occlusion. We reviewed our experience with this approach. Patients with both severe PH and PDAs were studied. PH treatment history and hemodynamic data obtained during catheterizations were reviewed. Repeat catheterizations, echocardiograms, and clinical status at latest follow-up were also reviewed. Seven patients had both PH and large, unrestrictive PDAs. At baseline, all patients had near-systemic right ventricular pressures. Nine catheterizations were performed. Two patients underwent 2 catheterizations each due to poor initial response to balloon test occlusion. Six of 7 patients exhibited subsystemic pulmonary pressures during test occlusion and underwent successful PDA occlusion. One patient did not undergo PDA occlusion. In follow-up, 2 additional catheterizations were performed after successful PDA occlusion for subsequent hemodynamic assessment. At the latest follow-up, the 6 patients who underwent PDA occlusion are well, with continued improvement in PH. Five patients remain on PH treatment. A staged approach to PDA closure for patients with severe PH is an effective treatment paradigm. Aggressive treatment of PH creates a window of opportunity for PDA occlusion, echocardiography assists in identifying the timing for closure, and balloon test occlusion during cardiac catheterization is critical in determining safety of closure. By safely eliminating the large PDA, this treatment algorithm can halt the perilous combination of the large shunting from the PDA and PH in a population at high risk of morbidity and mortality.