BACKGROUND: Despite concerns about complications with the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), it is effective for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). We aimed to analyze our midterm experience with ICD in children and young adults. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who were implanted with an ICD between 2001 and 2014. Demographic characteristics, clinical information, shock features, and complications for all patients with ICD were analyzed. The study population was divided into two groups: early-era patients implanted before 2008, and late-era patients implanted after 2008. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients (median age: 12 years, median follow-up: 52 months) were implanted with an ICD. Diagnostic categories were channelopathy (56.6%), cardiomyopathy (36.2%), congenital heart disease (5.8%), and other (1.4%). We performed implantation for primary prevention in 66.6% (39.3% in early-era patients and 85.4% in late-era patients). Thirty-one (44.9%) received 139 appropriate shocks (66% of total shocks) while 14 (20.2%) received 71 inappropriate shocks. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the use of appropriate shocks in the primary (66.7%) versus the secondary (72.2%) prevention groups. The incidence of appropriate and inappropriate shock was 66.7% and 33.3% in the primary prevention group, and 72.2% and 27.8% in the secondary prevention group, respectively. Two patients died, although only one death was the result of a lead problem. CONCLUSIONS: Although lead integrity problems, inappropriate shocks, and infections are significant issues, ICD therapy appears to be a safe, effective, and necessary option for the prevention of SCD in both children and young adults.
BACKGROUND: Despite concerns about complications with the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), it is effective for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). We aimed to analyze our midterm experience with ICD in children and young adults. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who were implanted with an ICD between 2001 and 2014. Demographic characteristics, clinical information, shock features, and complications for all patients with ICD were analyzed. The study population was divided into two groups: early-era patients implanted before 2008, and late-era patients implanted after 2008. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients (median age: 12 years, median follow-up: 52 months) were implanted with an ICD. Diagnostic categories were channelopathy (56.6%), cardiomyopathy (36.2%), congenital heart disease (5.8%), and other (1.4%). We performed implantation for primary prevention in 66.6% (39.3% in early-era patients and 85.4% in late-era patients). Thirty-one (44.9%) received 139 appropriate shocks (66% of total shocks) while 14 (20.2%) received 71 inappropriate shocks. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the use of appropriate shocks in the primary (66.7%) versus the secondary (72.2%) prevention groups. The incidence of appropriate and inappropriate shock was 66.7% and 33.3% in the primary prevention group, and 72.2% and 27.8% in the secondary prevention group, respectively. Two patients died, although only one death was the result of a lead problem. CONCLUSIONS: Although lead integrity problems, inappropriate shocks, and infections are significant issues, ICD therapy appears to be a safe, effective, and necessary option for the prevention of SCD in both children and young adults.