A Survey of Immunization Practices in Patients With Congenital Heart Disease

BACKGROUND: Congenital heart disease, the most common congenital anomaly, often presents in neonates. Because of perceived risks, health care providers may consider deferring immunizations in this population. We sought to understand the perceived risk of immunizations in those providing health care to children with particular heart conditions. METHODS: A survey, which included 6 hypothetical scenarios assessing immunization recommendations, was distributed internationally to relevant health care providers, and responses were compared between the different scenarios. RESULTS: Majority of responses (n = 142) were from paediatric cardiologists (n = 98; 69%) and nurse practitioners (n = 27; 19%) located in the United States (n = 77; 54%) or Canada (n = 53; 37%) working in academic teaching hospitals (n = 133; 93.7%). Most favoured vaccinations (n = 107; 75.4%) and less likely to proceed with the first immunization in infants with structural heart disease compared with channelopathy (risk ratio: 0.80, confidence interval: 0.73-0.87; P < 0.001). Only 40% would proceed with immunization as normal in an infant with manifest Brugada type I electrocardiogram. Special precautions after the immunization included longer duration of observation (19%) and administering prophylactic antipyretic medication (92%). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents were 20% more likely to defer immunizations in the presence of treatable structural heart disease as compared with channelopathy despite the lack of evidence supporting deferring immunizations in children with structural heart disease. Most were cautious in their response to the scenario involving Brugada syndrome, indicating awareness of the risk of haemodynamic instability in the event of a fever. The majority of respondents still strongly recommend immunizations in this population as the benefits outweigh the potential for adverse events.