Fifth Annual Pediatric Interagency Registry for Mechanical Circulatory Support (Pedimacs) Report.

TitleFifth Annual Pediatric Interagency Registry for Mechanical Circulatory Support (Pedimacs) Report.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2021
AuthorsRossano JW, VanderPluym CJ, Peng DM, Hollander SA, Maeda K, Adachi I, Davies RR, Simpson KE, Fynn-Thompson F, Conway J, Law SP, Cantor R, Koehl D, Jacobs JP, Amdani S, Kirklin JK, Morales DLS
Corporate AuthorsPedimacs Investigators
JournalAnn Thorac Surg
Date Published2021 Oct 11
ISSN1552-6259
Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Interagency Registry for Mechanical Circulatory Support (Pedimacs) provides detailed information on pediatric patients supported with ventricular assist devices (VADs).

METHODS: From September 19, 2012 to December 31, 2020 there were 1,229 devices in 1,011 patients reported to the registry from 47 North American Hospitals in patients under 19 years of age.

RESULTS: Cardiomyopathy was the most common underlying etiology (58%), followed by congenital heart disease (CHD) (25%) and myocarditis (10%). The most common devices implanted were implantable continuous (IC) (n=419, 41%), followed by paracorporeal pulsatile (PP) (n=269, 27%), paracorporeal continuous (PC) (n=263, 26%), and percutaneous (n=53, 5%). Overall, at six months after VAD implantation, 83% had a positive outcome (transplant, explant, or alive on device). The freedom from stroke was highest in IC VADs (93% at 3-months), compared to PP VADs (84% at 3-months) and with PC VADs (75% at 3-months. There were differences in survival by device type with patients on IC VADs having the best overall survival and those on PC having the lowest overall survival, though the patient populations being supported by each VAD type differed significantly from each other.

CONCLUSIONS: This Fifth Pedimacs Report demonstrates the continued robust growth of VADs in the pediatric community, now with over 1000 patients reported to the registry. The multiple available device types (PC, PP, IC) serve different populations with different pre-VAD risk profiles, which may account for differences in survival and AE between device types.

DOI10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.10.001
Alternate JournalAnn Thorac Surg
PubMed ID34648810