Remote monitoring is an established, guideline-recommended technology with unequivocal clinical benefits; however, its ability to improve survival is contradictory. The aim of our study was to investigate the effects of remote monitoring on mortality in an optimally treated heart failure patient population undergoing cardiac resynchronization defibrillator therapy (CRT-D) implantation in a large-volume tertiary referral center. The population of this single-center, retrospective, observational study included 231 consecutive patients receiving CRT-D devices in the Medical Centre of the Hungarian Defence Forces (Budapest, Hungary) from January 2011 to June 2016. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients on remote monitoring and conventional follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 28.4 (SD 18.1) months. Patients on remote monitoring were more likely to have atrial fibrillation, received heart failure management at our dedicated heart failure outpatient clinic more often, and have a slightly lower functional capacity. Crude all-cause mortality of remote-monitored patients was significantly lower compared with patients followed conventionally (hazard ratio [HR] 0.368, 95% CI 0.186-0.727, P=.004). The survival benefit remained statistically significant after adjustment for important baseline parameters (adjusted HR 0.361, 95% CI 0.181-0.722, P=.004). In this single-center, retrospective study of optimally treated heart failure patients undergoing CRT-D implantation, the use of remote monitoring systems was associated with a significantly better survival rate.

(1) Background: Besides the use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), multidisciplinary heart failure (HF) outpatient care (HFOC) is of strategic importance in HFrEF. (2) Methods: Data from 257 hospitalised HFrEF patients between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Application and target doses of GDMT were compared between HFOC and non-HFOC patients at discharge and at 1 year. 1-year all-cause mortality (ACM) and rehospitalisation (ACH) rates were compared using the Cox proportional hazard model. The effect of HFOC on GDMT and on prognosis after propensity score matching (PSM) of 168 patients and the independent predictors of 1-year ACM and ACH were also evaluated. (3) Results: At 1 year, the application of RASi, MRA and triple therapy (TT: RASi + βB + MRA) was higher (p < 0.05) in the HFOC group, as was the proportion of target doses of ARNI, βB, MRA and TT. After PSM, the composite of 1-year ACM or ACH was more favourable with HFOC (propensity-adjusted HR = 0.625, 95% CI = 0.401–0.974, p = 0.038). Independent predictors of 1-year ACM were age, systolic blood pressure, application of TT and HFOC, while 1-year ACH was influenced by the application of TT. (4) Conclusions: HFOC may positively impact GDMT use and prognosis in HFrEF even within the first year of its initiation.

Background/Objectives: Pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) develops in up to 30% of patients with chronic right ventricular pacing. While biventricular (BIV) upgrade is the conventional strategy, conduction system pacing (CSP) offers a physiologic alternative recently endorsed by the 2025 ESC/EHRA Consensus Statement. However, comparative evidence in PICM is limited. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes of PICM patients undergoing CSP versus BIV upgrade. Methods: This retrospective analysis included consecutive PICM patients who were upgraded to CSP or BIV between 2022 and 2024 at a single, experienced center. Follow-up averaged >19 months. Clinical outcomes, lead performance, echocardiographic parameters, complications, and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated. Results: Sixty-three patients were included (CSP: 26; BIV: 37). Mean age and sex distribution were similar; both groups had wide paced QRS complexes and a high ventricular pacing burden. Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in BIV patients (29 ± 7% vs. 35 ± 6%, p = 0.01). Procedure duration was comparable, but fluoroscopy was shorter with CSP. QRS duration narrowed significantly in both groups (CSP: 163 ± 28→132 ± 12 ms; BIV: 171 ± 23→140 ± 18 ms; both p < 0.05). During follow-up, LVEF improved (CSP: 41 ± 8%; p = 0.008; BIV: 39 ± 8%, p = 0.0001), as did NYHA class, with no significant intergroup differences. The rates of heart failure hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and QoL were similar. Notably, 34.6% of CSP patients retained their existing generator, suggesting procedural and economic benefits. Conclusions: CSP is a feasible and potentially cost-efficient alternative to BIV upgrade in PICM, with comparable improvements in ventricular function, symptoms, and clinical outcomes. Larger prospective trials are warranted.

Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an established alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who are at high risk of thromboembolic events or bleeding complications. Methods: In this single-center retrospective study, we analyzed 70 consecutive patients who underwent successful LAAC with the Watchman™ device between 2012 and 2024. Acute procedural outcomes, long-term thromboembolic and bleeding events, transfusion requirements and mortality were evaluated. Mean follow-up duration was 1210 days. Results: Procedural success was achieved in 98.6% of cases with a low periprocedural complication rate. Ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack occurred in 2.8% of patients; no hemorrhagic strokes or stroke-related deaths were observed. LAAC resulted in a significant reduction in both the number (144 vs. 56 events; 2.36 vs. 1.55 events per patient, p < 0.05) and severity of bleeding events. Nonetheless, 42.9% of patients required bleeding-related hospitalization after implantation, predominantly within the first 6 months during dual antiplatelet therapy. Overall mortality was 40% with a 12% yearly mortality rate; heart failure and infections were leading causes of death. Pre- and postprocedural transfusion requirements were independently associated with a six-fold increase in mortality risk (HR = 5.97). Conventional risk scores (CHA₂DS₂-VASc, HAS-BLED) failed to predict transfusion needs; atrial enlargement, right ventricular dysfunction, smoking and alcohol consumption were associated with higher risk. Conclusions: LAAC is a safe and effective alternative to long-term anticoagulation, significantly reducing bleeding burden without increasing thromboembolic mortality. Persistent postprocedural bleeding remains a major determinant of long-term prognosis, underscoring the need for individualized, multidisciplinary post-implant management.