No abstract

Background-Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) used to prevent sudden cardiac arrest in children not only provide appropriate therapy in 25% of patients but also result in a significant incidence of inappropriate shocks and other device complications. ICDs placed for secondary prevention have higher rates of appropriate therapy than those placed for primary prevention. Pediatric patients with primary prevention ICDs were studied to determine time-dependent incidence of appropriate use and adverse events. Methods and Results-A total of 140 patients aged <21 years (median age, 15 years) at first ICD implantation at BostonChildren 's Hospital (2000's Hospital ( -2009 in whom devices were placed for primary prevention were retrospectively identified. Demographics and times to first appropriate shock; adverse events (including inappropriate shock, lead failure, reintervention, and complication); generator replacement and follow-up were noted. During mean follow-up of 4 years, appropriate shock occurred in 19% patients and first adverse event (excluding death/transplant) occurred in 36%. Risk of death or transplant was ≈1% per year and was not related to receiving appropriate therapy. Conditional survival analysis showed rates of appropriate therapy and adverse events decrease soon after implantation, but adverse events are more frequent than appropriate therapy throughout follow-up. Conclusions-Primary prevention ICDs were associated with appropriate therapy in 19% and adverse event in 36% in this cohort. The incidence of both first appropriate therapy and device-related adverse events decreased during longer periods of follow-up after implantation. This suggests that indications for continued device therapy in pediatric primary prevention ICD patients might be reconsidered after a period of nonuse. (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol.

No abstract

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.

It is unclear whether the misuse of statistical tests that compare patients' baseline characteristics and subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials can be extrapolated to the surgical literature. We did an observational study evaluating the current use of baseline comparability tests and subgroup analyses in surgical randomized controlled trials. Published surgical randomized controlled trials in four medical journals were identified. We also identified randomized controlled trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American and British volumes). We identified 72 randomized controlled trials, with a mean of 10 +/- 8 baseline variables. Of 166 significance tests, 17 (10%) were significant. Twenty-seven (38%) trials included 54 subgroup analyses with a minimum of one and maximum of 23 subgroup analyses per study. Inappropriate emphasis on subgroup analyses occurred frequently. Forty-nine (91%) analyses were performed post hoc without prior hypotheses. Investigators reported differences between subgroups in 31 (57%) of the analyses, all of which were featured in the summary or conclusion. These inferences may be misleading, making their application to clinical practice unwarranted.

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.

IRBBB is not uncommon in a healthy school age population and is observed to have high inter-reader variability. It was associated with increased use of echocardiographic exam but was not associated with increased rate of echocardiographic findings when compared with rates for normal ECGs.

No abstract