Key result
Secondary-prevention ICDs link to higher appropriate therapy rates than primary prevention, reaching 56% at 5 years.
Why the study?
The benefits and potential risks of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in paediatric and congenital heart disease patients in the current era were not well characterized.
What are the rates of appropriate therapy and device-related complications of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in children and young adults with congenital heart disease, primary electrical disease, or paediatric cardiomyopathy?
Cohort (n=214)
What are the rates of appropriate therapy and device-related complications of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in children and young adults with congenital heart disease, primary electrical disease, or paediatric cardiomyopathy?
Absolute Event Rate: 56% vs 26%
p-value: p=0.003
ICD therapy in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients provides a high rate of appropriate therapies, especially for secondary prevention, but is associated with significant risks of unplanned surgeries and inappropriate shocks.
Supports secondary-prevention ICDs in young patients but underscores high complication burden; leaves optimal selection and device strategies open.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the benefits and potential risks of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in paediatric and congenital heart disease (CHD) patients in the current era. METHODS: All patients with CHD, paediatric cardiomyopathy or primary electrical disease, who underwent implantation of a defibrillator from 2001 to 2023, were examined. The occurrence of appropriate therapy, unplanned surgeries due to device complications, inappropriate shocks and associated risk factors were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 214 patients were included, with 61% having CHD, 17% having paediatric cardiomyopathy and 22% having primary electrical disease. The most common diagnoses were transposition of the great arteries and tetralogy of Fallot (each 12%). The median age at implantation was 23 years (interquartile ranges 15-38), and the median follow-up was 5.7 years (95% confidence interval 4.9-7.3). A total of 196 patients met the criteria for outcome analysis, where appropriate therapy was observed in 41% (n = 80), occurring more often in patients with indications for secondary prevention than primary prevention (56% vs 26% at 5 years, P = 0.003). The cumulative incidence of inappropriate shocks was 13% (n = 26), with patients with CHD being more frequently affected. Unplanned surgeries were required in 36% (n = 71), predominantly due to lead-related issues in those with abdominal generator placement. CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of appropriate therapies underscores the critical importance of risk assessment in ICD selection, particularly to mitigate lead failures and unnecessary shocks. However, defibrillator therapy has a relevant rate of unplanned surgeries, with abdominal generators and epicardial/extracardiac leads being risk factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fetcu et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Congenital heart disease, primary electrical disease or paediatric cardiomyopathy (n=214). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (secondary prevention) vs. Primary prevention was evaluated on Appropriate therapy at 5 years (p=0.003). Appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy occurred in 41% of patients, with higher rates for secondary compared to primary prevention (56% vs 26% at 5 years, P=0.003).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: