Epicardial vs. Transvenous ICDs in Children

Epicardial Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Children

Status

Completed

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Observational

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT05349162

Enrollment

131

Registered

2022-04-27

Start date

2003-01-01

Completion date

2022-04-01

Last updated

2022-04-27

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Complications, Implantable Defibrillator User

Brief summary

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.

Interventions

DEVICEImplantable cardioverter defibrillator use

Implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (epicardial or transvenous)

Study design

Observational model

COHORT

Time perspective

RETROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

0 Years to 18 Years

Inclusion criteria

* ICD implantation * Age \< 18 years

Exclusion criteria

\- Absence of patient's consent

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Number of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator system dysfunction (lead dysfunction requiring reintervention)	up to 15 years	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

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 10, 2026