Potential additional indicators for pacemaker requirement in isolated congenital atrioventricular block

• Published in: Pediatric cardiology Vol. 27; no. 5; pp. 564 - 568
• Main Authors: Breur, J M P J, Udink ten Cate, F E A, Kapusta, L, Boramanand, N, Cohen, M I, Crosson, J E, Lubbers, L J, Friedman, A H, Brenner, J I, Vetter, V L, Meijboom, E J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Springer 01.10.2006
• Subjects: Cardiac Pacing, Artificial - methods; Care and treatment; Causes of; Child; Child, Preschool; Congenital heart disease; Diagnosis; Disease Progression; Electrocardiography, Ambulatory; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Heart Block - congenital; Heart Block - physiopathology; Heart Block - therapy; Heart Rate - physiology; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Pacemaker, Artificial; Pacemaker, Artificial (Heart); Retrospective Studies; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Netherlands
• ISSN: 0172-0643; 1432-1971
• DOI: 10.1007/s00246-004-0629-1

Low heart rate is the predominantly used indication for pacemaker intervention in patients with isolated congenital atrioventricular block (CAVB). The aim of this study was to compare the difference in heart rates recorded with ECG and Holter monitoring between paced (PM) and nonpaced (NPM) patients with isolated CAVB before pacemaker implantation to identify additional predictors for future PM need. Retrospective evaluation of atrial and ventricular rates (electrocardiography) and minimal and maximal (Holter) heart rates in 129 CAVB patients prior to PM implantation (n = 93) was performed, and results are expressed in V adjusted for age and sex. The average V score for the atrial rate was 0.51 (n = 50) in the PM group and 0.60 (n = 22) in the NPM group (not-significant). The average z score for the ventricular (average) rate was -0.91 (n = 83) in the PM group and -0.93 (n = 33) in the NPM group (not-significant). Minimal heart rate was -0.94 (n = 61) in the PM group and -0.86 (n = 25) in the NPM group (not significant). Maximal heart rate was -0.96 (n = 61) in the PM group and -0.95 (n = 26) in the NPM group (not significant). Initial recordings of the average heart rate and the minimal and maximal heart rate recorded during Holter monitoring do not seem to predict future pacemaker need in patients with CAVB. Studies with exercise stress tests are needed to confirm these findings.