Epicardial vs. Transvenous ICDs in Children

Paris Cardiovascular Research Center (Inserm U970)131 enrolled

Overview

This observational study included all patients \<18-year-old implanted with an Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) at Necker Hospital, Paris, France, from January 2003 to January 2021. Outcomes (ICD-related complications and reinterventions) were compared between epicardial and transvenous ICDs using Cox proportional hazard models.

Study Type

OBSERVATIONAL

Enrollment

131

Conditions

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Complications Implantable Defibrillator User

Interventions

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator useDEVICE

Implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (epicardial or transvenous)

Eligibility

Sex: ALLMin age: 0 YearsMax age: 18 Years

Medical Language ↔ Plain English

Inclusion Criteria: * ICD implantation * Age \< 18 years Exclusion Criteria: \- Absence of patient's consent

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Number of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator system dysfunction (lead dysfunction requiring reintervention)

Number of patients in each group (epicardial and transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator) with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator dysfunction (dysfunction of at least one lead requiring reintervention) at the end of the follow-up

Time frame: up to 15 years

Data from ClinicalTrials.gov

This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.