Over the past decade, remote monitoring (RM) has become an increasingly popular way to improve healthcare and health outcomes. Modern cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are capable of recording an increasing amount of data related to CIED function, arrhythmias, physiological status and hemodynamic parameters, providing in-depth and updated information on patient cardiovascular function. The extensive use of RM for patients with CIED allows for early diagnosis and rapid assessment of relevant issues, both clinical and technical, as well as replacing outpatient follow-up improving overall management without compromise safety. This approach is recommended by current guidelines for all eligible patients affected by different chronic cardiac conditions including either brady- and tachy-arrhythmias and heart failure. Beyond to clinical advantages, RM has demonstrated cost-effectiveness and is associated with elevated levels of patient satisfaction. Future perspectives include improving security, interoperability and diagnostic power as well as to engage patients with digital health technology. This review aims to update existing data concerning clinical outcomes in patients managed with RM in the wide spectrum of cardiac arrhythmias and Hear Failure (HF), disclosing also about safety, effectiveness, patient satisfaction and cost-saving.

Cardiac amyloidosis is the most frequent infiltrative disease caused by the deposition of misfolded proteins in the cardiac tissue, leading to heart failure, brady- and tachyarrhythmia and death. Conduction disorders, atrial fibrillation (AF) and ventricular arrhythmia (VA) significantly impact patient outcomes and demand recognition. However, several issues remain unresolved regarding early diagnosis and optimal management. Extreme bradycardia is the most common cause of arrhythmic death, while fast and sustained VAs can be found even in the early phases of the disease. Risk stratification and the prevention of sudden cardiac death are therefore to be considered in these patients, although the time for defibrillator implantation is still a subject of debate. Moreover, atrial impairment due to amyloid fibrils is associated with an increased risk of AF resistant to antiarrhythmic therapy, as well as recurrent thromboembolic events despite adequate anticoagulation. In the last few years, the aging of the population and progressive improvements in imaging methods have led to increases in the diagnosis of cardiac amyloidosis. Novel therapies have been developed to improve patients’ functional status, quality of life and mortality, without data regarding their effect on arrhythmia prevention. In this review, we consider the latest evidence regarding the arrhythmic risk stratification of cardiac amyloidosis, as well as the available therapeutic strategies.

Background: Mitral annular disjunction (MAD) is an anatomical abnormality associated with an increased risk of major arrhythmic events, regardless of the presence of mitral valve prolapse. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) plays a key role in diagnosing MAD and identifying myocardial fibrosis, a marker of arrhythmic vulnerability. Aim: This study reports the experience of the De Gasperis Cardiology Centre at Niguarda Hospital (Milan, Italy) in managing high-risk MAD patients who underwent implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) implantation and describes their main clinical characteristics. Methods: Between January 2020 and April 2025, five patients with MAD who received ICDs were identified and monitored remotely. Although the small sample size limits generalizability, the objective was to characterize factors associated with arrhythmic susceptibility. Results: Four patients exhibited documented ventricular arrhythmias: two with non-sustained and two with sustained ventricular tachycardia. Notably, CMR did not reveal myocardial fibrosis in two symptomatic cases, suggesting that arrhythmic vulnerability may precede detectable structural abnormalities. The observed coexistence of MAD with arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathies and channelopathies underscores the relevance of comprehensive genetic evaluation in these patients. Conclusions: MAD should be considered a potential arrhythmogenic substrate rather than a benign anatomical variant. A multimodal diagnostic approach and individualized risk stratification—potentially integrating genetic findings—are essential for optimal patient management.

Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy is a heart disease in which the heart muscle is replaced by scar tissue. This is the main substrate for the development of malignant ventricular arrhythmias. Sudden cardiac death is the most common manifestation and can often be the first sign of the disease, especially in young people. Correct stratification of arrhythmic risk is essential for the management of these patients but remains a challenge for the clinical cardiologist. In this context, the aim of our work was to review the literature and to analyse the most important studies and new developments with regard to the stratification of the risk of arrhythmia in patients suffering from arrhythmogenic cardiopathy.

Background: Arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy (AIC) is a relatively common yet poorly understood cardiac condition that occurs when arrhythmias cause left ventricular systolic dysfunction, which can be reversed with the resolution of the arrhythmia. Catheter ablation serves as a cornerstone treatment for eliminating the arrhythmic trigger. However, the variability in left ventricular recovery following ablation highlights the need to identify reliable predictors of reverse remodeling. Methods: This review explores key studies on AIC patients undergoing catheter ablation, primarily derived from observational cohorts, to identify significant predictors of left ventricular function recovery. Results: While echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging remain the primary diagnostic modalities, additional insights have emerged from electrocardiograms and laboratory biomarkers. Despite these advancements, a comprehensive framework for identifying optimal candidates for ablation remains lacking. Conclusions: By synthesizing existing evidence, this review aims to pinpoint the most robust predictors of systolic recovery in AIC patients following ablation.