Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:17:21.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variations in cardiac implantable electronic device surveillance and ancillary testing in the paediatric and congenital heart disease population: an international multi-centre survey from the Paediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society

Part of: Electrophysiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2021

Melissa M. Olen Open the ORCID record for Melissa M. Olen [Opens in a new window] ,
Brynn E. Dechert ,
Anne Foster ,
Ronald J. Kanter ,
Michael J. Silka  and
Maully J. Shah
Melissa M. Olen
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiology, Nicklaus Children’s Hospital, Miami, FL, USA
Brynn E. Dechert
Affiliation:
C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Anne Foster
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiology, Advocate Children’s Heart Institute, Oak Lawn, IL, USA
Ronald J. Kanter
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiology, Nicklaus Children’s Hospital, Miami, FL, USA
Michael J. Silka
Affiliation:
Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Maully J. Shah*
Affiliation:
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: M. Shah, MBBS, Director, Cardiac Electrophysiology, The Cardiac Center, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 3400 Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. Tel: +2674256603; Fax: +215 590 3267. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Expert guidance from scientific societies and regulatory agencies recommend a framework of principles for frequency of in-person evaluations and remote monitoring for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. However, there are limited data regarding adherence to recommendations among paediatric electrophysiologists, and there are no data regarding cardiac implantable electronic device-related ancillary testing.

Methods:

To assess current clinical practices for cardiac implantable electronic device in-person evaluation, remote monitoring, and cardiac implantable electronic device-related ancillary testing, the Paediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society members were surveyed. The main outcome measures were variations in frequency of in person evaluation, frequency of remote monitoring, and cardiac implantable electronic device-related ancillary testing.

Results:

All respondents performed in-person evaluation at least once a year, but <50% of respondents performed an in-person evaluation within 2 weeks of cardiac implantable electronic device implantation. Remote monitoring was performed every 3 months for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators by 71 and 75% respondents, respectively. Follow-up echocardiography was performed every 2–3 years by 53% respondents for patients with >50% ventricular pacing. Majority of respondents (75%) did not perform either an exercise stress test or ambulatory Holter monitoring or chest X-ray (65%) after cardiac implantable electronic device implantation.

Conclusion:

This survey identified significant practice variations in cardiac implantable electronic device in- person evaluation, remote monitoring, and ancillary testing practices among paediatric electrophysiologists. Cardiac implantable electronic device management may be optimised by development of a paediatric-specific guidelines for follow-up and ancillary testing.

Keywords

CIEDremote monitoringpacemakersICDPACESsurveillancefollow-uppaediatricsCHD
Type
Original Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 101 - 105
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Wilkoff, BL, Auricchio, A, Brugada, J, et al. HRS/EHRA Expert Consensus on the Monitoring of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs): description of techniques, indications, personnel, frequency and ethical considerations. Heart Rhythm 2008; 5: 907–925.10.1016/j.hrthm.2008.04.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slotwiner, D, Varma, N, Akar, JG, et al. HRS Expert Consensus Statement on remote interrogation and monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm 2015; 12: e69–e100.10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.05.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dasgupta, S, Madani, R, Figueroa, J, et al. Myocardial deformation as a predictor of right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in the pediatric population. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2020; 31: 337–344.10.1111/jce.14312CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berul, CI, Villafane, J, Atkins, DL, et al. Pacemaker lead prolapse through the pulmonary valve in children. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2007; 30: 1183–1189.10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00839.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mah, DY, Prakash, A, Porras, D, et al. Coronary artery compression from epicardial leads: more common than we think. Heart Rhythm 2018; 15: 1439–1447.10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.06.038CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyer, SL, Silka, MJ, Bar-Cohen, Y. Current practices in the monitoring of cardiac rhythm devices in pediatrics and congenital heart disease. Pediatric Cardiol 2015; 36: 821–826.10.1007/s00246-014-1090-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dechert, BE, Serwer, GA, Bradley, DJ, Dick, M, LaPage, MJ. Cardiac implantable electronic device remote monitoring surveillance in pediatric and congenital heart disease: utility relative to frequency. Heart Rhythm 2015; 12: 117–122.10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.10.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malloy, LE, Gingerich, J, Olson, MD, et al. Remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable devices in the pediatric population improves detection of adverse events. Pediatr Cardiol 2014; 35: 301–306.10.1007/s00246-013-0774-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Akar, JG, Bao, H, Jones, PW, et al. Use of remote monitoring is associated with lower risk of adverse outcomes among patients with implanted cardiac defibrillators. Circ Arrhythmia Electrophysiol 2015; 8: 1173–1180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bricker, JT, Garson, A Jr, Traweek, MS, et al. The use of exercise testing in children to evaluate abnormalities of pacemaker function not apparent at rest. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1985; 8: 656–660.10.1111/j.1540-8159.1985.tb05877.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez Corcia, MC, Remy, LS, Marchandise, S, Moniotte, S. Exercise performance in young patients with complete atrioventricular block: the relevance of synchronous atrioventricular pacing. Cardiol Young 2016; 26: 1066–1071.10.1017/S104795111500178XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chudzik, M, Klimczak, A, Wranicz, JK. Ambulatory Holter monitoring in asymptomatic patients with DDD pacemakers - do we need ACC/AHA Guidelines revision? Arch Med Sci 2013; 9: 815–820.10.5114/aoms.2013.38675CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dechert, BE, Serwer, GA, Bradley, DJ, Dick, M, LaPage, MJ. Cardiac implantable electronic device remote monitoring surveillance in pediatric and congenital heart disease: utility relative to frequency. Heart Rhythm 2015; 12: 117–122.10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.10.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alexander, B, Baranchuk, A. Remote device programming. Has it’s time come? Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2020; 13: e008949.10.1161/CIRCEP.120.008949CrossRefGoogle Scholar