Skip to the main content

Meeting abstract

https://doi.org/10.15836/ccar2024.635

Implantation of an extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator in a pediatric patient: a case report

Matija Mlinar orcid id orcid.org/0000-0002-0212-7924 ; University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Zvonimir Katić orcid id orcid.org/0000-0002-0493-3188 ; University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Iva Mamić orcid id orcid.org/0009-0005-2678-0353 ; University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Iva Petković orcid id orcid.org/0009-0000-1708-5555 ; University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Domagoj Kardum orcid id orcid.org/0000-0001-5202-4061 ; University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Danijela Krnjić orcid id orcid.org/0009-0004-8039-3939 ; University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Dubravka Milača ; University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Glorija Gočin Vuković orcid id orcid.org/0009-0000-3653-2605 ; University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia


Full text: english pdf 137 Kb

page 635-635

downloads: 123

cite

Download JATS file


Abstract

Keywords

implantable cardioverter defibrillator; extra-vascular; pediatric patient

Hrčak ID:

329031

URI

https://hrcak.srce.hr/329031

Publication date:

13.12.2024.

Visits: 327 *



Introduction: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is vital for treating life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias and preventing sudden cardiac death. Numerous studies highlight the advantages of ICD therapy in adults, as well as some research on its off-label use in children and adolescents. Although ICD therapy accounts for less than 1% of the pediatric population receiving these devices, it remains a crucial treatment option for young patients. (1) Current guidelines give a class I recommendation for ICD implantation in patients with either ischemic or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with severely depressed systolic function (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤35% for New York Heart Association [NYHA] Class II or III, ≤30% for NYHA Class I symptoms). At five years from implantation, about 37% of primary prevention patients will have an appropriate device intervention (antitachycardia pacing or shock), against 51% of patients implanted for secondary prevention.

Case report: Goal of this case report is to show that implantation of newly developed extravascular ICD is safe and possible in pediatric patient. As technology advances, there is a lot more possibilities for ICD implantation in sense of access to the heart. At our center last year, we implanted 5 subcutaneous ICDs (3.6% of whole ICD implants) and this year for the first time we implanted extravascular ICD - “Aurora”. Patient was 11 years old female with out of hospital cardiac arrest, ventricular fibrillation and reanimation, without any prior anamnestic problems. First plan was to perform classic endovascular ICD implantation but after doing venogram of both sides’ conclusion was that endovascular classic lead would not be able to go through veins (left v. subclavian was occluded, right v. subclavian was narrow).

Conclusion: Successful implantation of extravascular ICD was performed and multiple defibrillation threshold test were performed. Patient was discharged from hospital after few days of observation, with all therapy’s features turned on. Follow-up is needed to check if there are any inappropriate shocks.

LITERATURE

1 

van Welsenes GH, van Rees JB, Borleffs CJ, Cannegieter SC, Bax JJ, van Erven L, et al. Long-term follow-up of primary and secondary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients. Europace. 2011 March;13(3):389–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euq494 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21208947


This display is generated from NISO JATS XML with jats-html.xsl. The XSLT engine is libxslt.