Background: The impact of cardiac rehabilitation on the number of alerts in patients with remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is unknown. We compared alerts in RM and outcomes in patients with CIEDs undergoing hybrid comprehensive telerehabilitation (HCTR) versus usual care (UC). Methods: Patients with heart failure (HF) after a hospitalization due to worsening HF within the last 6 months (New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I-III and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%) were enrolled in the TELEREH-HF study and randomised 1:1 to HCTR or UC. Patients with HCTR and CIEDs received RM (HCTR-RM). Patients with UC and CIEDs were offered RM optionally (UC-RM). Data from the initial 9 weeks of the study were analysed. Results: Of 850 enrolled patients, 208 were in the HCTR-RM group and 62 in the UC-RM group. The HCTR-RM group was less likely to have alerts of intrathoracic impedance (TI) decrease (p < 0.001), atrial fibrillation (AF) occurrence (p = 0.031) and lower mean number of alerts per patient associated with TI decrease (p < 0.0001) and AF (p = 0.019) than the UC-RM group. HCTR significantly decreased the occurrence of alerts in RM of CIEDs, 0.360 (95%CI, 0.189–0.686; p = 0.002), in multivariable regression analysis. There were two deaths in the HCTR-RM group (0.96%) and no deaths in the UC-RM group (p = 1.0). There were no differences in the number of hospitalised patients between the HCTR-RM and UC-RM group (p = 1.0). Conclusions: HCTR significantly reduced the number of patients with RM alerts of CIEDs related to TI decrease and AF occurrence. There were no differences in mortality or hospitalisation rates between HCTR-RM and UC-RM groups.

Nowadays, both the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) logistic (ESL) and EuroSCORE II (ESII) models are used worldwide in predicting in-hospital mortality after cardiac operation. However, these scales are based on different populations and represent different medical approaches. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the ESL and the ESII risk scores in predicting in-hospital death and prolonged hospitalization in intensive care unit (ICU) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), aortic valve replacement (AVR), and mitral valve replacement (MVR) by comparison of an estimated risk and a real-life observation at a reference cardiac surgery unit. This retrospective study was based on medical records of patients who underwent a CABG, AVR, or MVR at a reference cardiac surgery unit in a 2-year period. Primary endpoint was defined as in-hospital death. Secondary endpoint was a prolonged hospitalization at the ICU, defined as longer than 3 days. The study encompassed 586 patients [114 (23.1%) female, mean age 65.8 ± 10.5 years], including 493 patients undergoing CABG, 66 patients undergoing AVR, and 27 patients undergoing MVR. The ESL and ESII risk scores were higher in MVR subgroup (31.7% ± 30.5% and 15.3% ± 19.4%) and AVR subgroup (9.7% ± 11.6% and 3.2% ± 4.2%) than in CABG subgroup (6.9% ± 10.4% and 2.5% ± 4.1%; P < .001). Subgroups of patients were significantly different in terms of clinical, biochemical, and echocardiography factors. Primary endpoint occurred in 36 (6.1%) patients: 21 (4.3%), 7 (10.6%), and 8 (29.7%) in CABG, AVR, and MVR subgroups, respectively. The ESII underestimated the risk of mortality. Secondary endpoint occurred in 210 (35.8%) patients: 172 (34.9%), 22 (33.4%), and 16 (59.3%) in CABG, AVR, and MVR subgroups, respectively. In the study, the perioperative risk estimated with the ESL and the ESII risk scores was compared with a real-life outcome among over 500 patients. Regardless of the type of surgery, result in the ESL was better correlated with the risk of in-hospital death.

(1) Background: Administrative data allows for time- and cost-efficient acquisition of large volumes of individual patient data invaluable for evaluation of the prevalence of diseases and clinical outcomes. The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of data collected from the Polish National Health Fund (NHF), from a researcher’s perspective, in regard to a cohort of atrial fibrillation patients. (2) Methods: NHF data regarding atrial fibrillation and common cardiovascular comorbidities was compared with the data collected manually from the individual patients’ health records (IHR) collected in the retrospective CRAFT registry (NCT02987062). (3) Results: Data from the NHF underestimated the proportion of patients with AF (NHF = 83% vs. IHR = 100%) while overestimating the proportion of patients with other cardiovascular comorbidities in the cohort. Significantly higher CHA2DS2VASc (Median, [Q1–Q3]) (NHF: 1, [0–2]; vs. IHR: 1, [0–1]; p < 0.001) and HAS-BLED (Median, [Q1–Q3]) (NHF: 4, [2–6] vs. IHR: 3, [2–5]; p < 0.001) scores were calculated according to NHF in comparison to IHR data, respectively. (4) Conclusions: Clinical researchers should be aware that significant differences between IHR and billing data in cardiovascular research can be observed which should be acknowledged while drawing conclusions from administrative data-based cohorts. Natural Language Processing of IHR could further increase administrative data quality in the future.

Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and reduced left ventricle ejection fraction benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). However, increasing numbers of patient with CRT and ICD devices produce overload of cardiology centers where patients are admitted to ambulatory visits. This study aims to find multivariate model predicting the requirement for ambulatory follow-up of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The LUCY study is an observational, cohort, prospective, 2-stage trial. As equal number of patients (300) will be included in the first and the second part of the study, finally, 600 patients will be included in the study. The inclusion criteria will be: age between 18 and 90 years, CHF (New York Heart Association classes I–III) and implanted ICD or CRT at least 30 days before study inclusion. The exclusion criteria will be dementia and other conditions impeding cooperation during the study. All patients included in the study will undergo standard ambulatory visit. Primary endpoint will be defined as any ambulatory visit qualified as necessary due to patient's condition or device malfunction diagnose by the cardiologist: any change in pharmacotherapy related to patient's clinical status assessed during the visit, any change in tachyarrythmia counter or discriminator status, any change in tachyarrythmia threshold, presence of ventricular undersensing or oversensing, presence of atrial or ventricular ineffective pacing, or device's pocket infection. Secondary endpoint will be defined as any ambulatory visit qualified as necessary due to the alarm identified via Medtronic CareLink Express (MCLE): sustained or treated ventricular tachyarrythmia, any not previously diagnosed supraventricular tachyarrythmia, or elective replacement indicator. Our study is the first attempt of implementation of the machine learning and elements artificial intelligence in health care optimization of patients with CIED. The LUCY will be an open product, available for additional testing and improvement with supplementary functionalities: quality of life assessment, teleconsultation, video-streaming, automated imagine recognizing.