Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Children:

P. Frias

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1540-8167.2004.03571.x

2004-01-01

Abstract:The loss of any family member is a devastating event; however, the sudden death of a child is particularly distressing, affecting not only the immediate family but also the whole community. As many such deaths are from ventricular arrhythmias, the advent of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) represents a potentially life-saving therapy for those patients at greatest risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). In this issue of the Journal, Alexander et al.1 describe a single center’s experience with ICD therapy in 76 children and young adults with heart disease, the largest single-center “pediatric” ICD experience ever reported. There was a 28% incidence of appropriate, potentially life-saving ICD therapy, a 25% incidence of inappropriate discharge, and a 21% incidence of lead failure. The overall survival was 95%, with all 4 deaths occurring in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). Since the initial report by Mirowski et al.2 in 1980, the ICD has evolved from a large, cumbersome device able to deliver only high-energy shocks to a small, multiprogrammable device with dual-chamber (and biventricular) pacing capabilities. More than 60,000 devices are now implanted annually. As with most advances in medical technology, the application of ICDs in the pediatric population has been justified by extrapolating data from large trials in adult patients with diseases that are not prevalent in children. Although there have been numerous controlled, prospective trials demonstrating a clear advantage of ICD therapy over conventional therapy for prevention of SCD in adult populations (MADIT,3 AVID,4 MUSTT5), the indications for ICD use in pediatric patients with heart disease are neither well defined nor agreed upon. The 1998 ACC/AHA Guidelines for Implantation of Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices6 stated that the “indications for device therapy in pediatric patients are similar to those for arrhythmias in adults.” These recommendations were updated in 2002,7 although there remained no specific set of criteria for pediatric patients. A contributing factor to the lack of specific recommendations is the limited data regarding risk stratification in pediatrics.8,9 Although risk stratification data have been proposed for certain diagnoses prone to SCD (i.e., long QT syndrome, Brugada syndrome, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy), these data do not necessarily pertain to pediatric patients and are based on experiences at tertiary care centers.10-12