Implant and Clinical Characteristics for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Registry

Background—In 2010, the National Cardiovascular Data Registry enhanced pediatric, nonatherosclerotic structural heart disease and congenital heart disease (CHD) data collection. This report characterizes CHD and pediatric patients undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation. Methods and Results—In this article, we report implantable cardioverter defibrillator procedures (April 2010 to December 2012) in the registry for 2 cohorts: (1) all patients with CHD (atrial septal defect, ventricular septal defect, tetralogy of Fallot, Ebstein anomaly, transposition of the great vessels, and common ventricle) and (2) patients <21 years. We evaluated indications and characteristics to include transvenous and nontransvenous lead implants, CHD type, and New York Heart Association class. There were 3139 CHD procedures, 1601 for patients <21 years and 126 for CHD <21 years. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator indications for patients with CHD were primary prevention in 1943 (61.9%) and secondary prevention in 1107 (35.2%). Pediatric patients had 935 (58.4%) primary prevention and 588 (36.7%) secondary prevention devices. Primary prevention had higher New York Heart Association class. Nontransvenous age (35.9±23.2 versus 40.1±24.6 years; P=0.05) and nontransvenous height (167.1±18.9 cm; range, 53–193 cm versus 170.4±13.1 cm; range, 61–203 cm; P<0.01) were lower than for transvenous patients. CHD and pediatrics had similar rates of transvenous (97%) and nontransvenous (3%) leads and did not differ from the overall registry. Transposition of the great vessels and common ventricle had higher rates of nontransvenous leads. Conclusions—Primary prevention exceeds secondary prevention for CHD and pediatrics. Nontransvenous lead patients were younger, with higher rates of transposition of the great vessels and common ventricle patients compared with transvenous lead patients.

[1]  A. Krieger,et al.  Minimally invasive resynchronization pacemaker: a pediatric animal model. , 2013, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[2]  John Rumsfeld,et al.  The National ICD Registry Report: version 2.1 including leads and pediatrics for years 2010 and 2011. , 2013, Heart rhythm.

[3]  B. Lindsay,et al.  ACCF/HRS/AHA/ASE/HFSA/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2013 appropriate use criteria for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation appropriate use criteria task force, Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, Ameri , 2013, Heart rhythm.

[4]  B. Lindsay,et al.  ACCF/HRS/AHA/ASE/HFSA/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2013 appropriate use criteria for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation appropriate use criteria task force, Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, Ameri , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[5]  I. V. Van Gelder,et al.  Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease: Who Is at Risk of Shocks? , 2012, Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology.

[6]  W. Winkelmayer,et al.  Trends in the use and outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients undergoing dialysis in the United States. , 2011, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[7]  D. Atkins,et al.  Multicenter Study of the Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Children and Young Adults With Heart Disease , 2011, Pediatric Cardiology.

[8]  I. Piña,et al.  Review of the registry's fourth year, incorporating lead data and pediatric ICD procedures, and use as a national performance measure. , 2010, Heart rhythm.

[9]  J. Triedman,et al.  System survival of nontransvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators compared to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients. , 2010, Heart rhythm.

[10]  C. Berul.  Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Criteria for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Pediatric Sudden Cardiac Death , 2009, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[11]  K. Gauvreau,et al.  Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (and Multisite Pacing) in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease: Five Years Experience in a Single Institution , 2009, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.

[12]  J. Triedman,et al.  Results of a multicenter retrospective implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry of pediatric and congenital heart disease patients. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  John K Triedman,et al.  A multicenter experience with novel implantable cardioverter defibrillator configurations in the pediatric and congenital heart disease population. , 2005, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.

[14]  B. Mulder,et al.  CONCOR, an initiative towards a national registry and DNA-bank of patients with congenital heart disease in the Netherlands: Rationale, design, and first results , 2005, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[15]  John K Triedman,et al.  Implications of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatrics , 2004, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.

[16]  R. Friedman,et al.  The use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in pediatric patients awaiting heart transplantation. , 2003, Journal of cardiac failure.

[17]  G. Marx,et al.  Electrocardiographic Markers of Late Sudden Death Risk in Postoperative Tetralogy of Fallot Children , 1997, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.