Permanent His-bundle Pacing in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease

Lyon, Shannon M.; Dandamudi, Gopi; Kean, Adam C.

doi:10.19102/icrm.2020.110205

Cited by 23 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…12 Early His bundle pacing may also offer benefits, though studies on His bundle pacing for cHB are limited. 13 Last, our nonpaced group had no mortality nor new cardiomyopathy development on long term follow-up, so delaying device implantation when clinically possible (i.e., no significant bradycardia-related symptoms) seems to be safe and a reasonable option to consider. Also, implanting a PM that is programmed with the intent of minimizing RV pacing is another strategy that could be considered in select patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Ventricular pacing and myocardial function in patient with congenital heart block

Rangavajla

Mulukutla

Thoma

et al. 2021

Cardiovasc electrophysiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Pacing‐induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is a potential complication of chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing, but its characterization in adult patients is often complicated by pre‐existing cardiomyopathy. This study investigated the incidence of PICM in patients with congenital heart block (cHB) who have conduction disease from birth without confounding pre‐existing cardiac conditions. Methods and Results This retrospective cohort analysis included 42 patients with cHB and baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50%. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to assess freedom from cardiomyopathy (defined as LVEF <50%) between paced and nonpaced patients. Patients were 26 ± 3 years old at first presentation, 64% were women and baseline LVEF was 60.0 ± 0.2%. Median follow‐up from birth was 35 (interquartile range [IQR]: 20–42) years with a median of 6.7 years (IQR: 3.6–9.2) at our institution. Thirty‐two patients received pacing at mean age 21 ± 3 years. Patients receiving a pacemaker (PM) were significantly more likely to develop a cardiomyopathy (p = .021) and no patient developed a cardiomyopathy in the absence of a PM. Four patients who developed a new cardiomyopathy were upgraded to biventricular pacing, leading to stabilization or improvement of LVEF. Conclusion In a relatively young and healthy cHB cohort, RV pacing is associated with a higher risk of developing a cardiomyopathy. These data confirm the deleterious effects of RV pacing on myocardial function in patients without pre‐existing structural cardiac disease and has clinical implications to the management of patients with cHB.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Ventricular pacing and myocardial function in patient with congenital heart block

Rangavajla

Mulukutla

Thoma

et al. 2021

Cardiovasc electrophysiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These include subcutaneous ICDs, leadless pacemakers, and conduction system pacing. [315][316][317] Multicenter prospective registries as well as high- Number value: 0 = $0; 1 = ≤ $10,000; 2 = > $10,000 to ≤ $25,000; 3 = > $25,000 to ≤ $50,000; 4 = > $50,000 to ≤ $100,000; 5 = > $100,000.…”

Section: Knowledge Gaps and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…These include subcutaneous ICDs, leadless pacemakers, and conduction system pacing. 219,316,317 Multicenter prospective registries as well as high-quality retrospective data are necessary to provide real-world evidence for new and existing CIED technologies. Future research should be conducted in collaboration with PACES, other relevant scientific societies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry partners for development of pediatric "appropriate" CIEDs and device algorithms to specifically benefit young patients and improve their long-term outcomes.…”

Section: Knowledge Gaps and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Permanent His-bundle Pacing in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease

Cited by 23 publications

References 39 publications

Ventricular pacing and myocardial function in patient with congenital heart block

Ventricular pacing and myocardial function in patient with congenital heart block

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About