Fleur W Adriaansen, Jaap Seelig, Tim A C de Vries, Leonard Voorhout, Frank P Brouwers, Balazs Manfai, Richard Derksen, Christiaan Aagenborg, Carine J M Doggen, Ron Pisters, Martin E W Hemels
{"title":"使用远程监测心脏起搏器接受者的心律管理优化:HERO注册表。","authors":"Fleur W Adriaansen, Jaap Seelig, Tim A C de Vries, Leonard Voorhout, Frank P Brouwers, Balazs Manfai, Richard Derksen, Christiaan Aagenborg, Carine J M Doggen, Ron Pisters, Martin E W Hemels","doi":"10.1007/s12471-025-01953-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Current expert consensus recommends remote monitoring (RM) for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). As this recommendation is primarily based on studies involving implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), the HERO (HEart Rhythm management Optimisation of pacemaker recipients using remote monitoring) study aimed to reinforce this recommendation for pacemaker recipients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The exploratory, retrospective, single-centre HERO study included 203 patients with an increased stroke risk (CHA<sub>2</sub>DS<sub>2</sub>-VASc score ≥ 2) but without a history of atrial fibrillation or flutter, who received a pacemaker between January 2016 and April 2018. Occurrence and detection time of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias were analysed in patients with RM (RM+; n = 60) and those without RM (RM-; n = 143), together with CIED adverse events, cardiology visits and anticoagulation adjustments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median age of the patients was 80 (73-85) years, with 55.2% being men. During a median follow-up of 5.0 years, 53.7% were diagnosed with at least one arrhythmic event (RM+ 60.0% vs RM- 51.0%, p = 0.28). The median time from pacemaker implantation to detection of first arrhythmic event was 2.5 (0.5-8.2) years in the RM+ group versus 2.8 (1.2-8.0) years in the RM- group (hazard ratio 0.89; 95% confidence interval 0.59-1.35; p = 0.58). There were no differences in the number of adverse events or anticoagulation adjustments during follow-up. More CIED telephone consultations were conducted in the RM+ group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A substantial proportion of pacemaker patients experienced one or more arrhythmic events during follow-up. The HERO study did not demonstrate a difference in time to detection of the first event when using remote monitoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":18952,"journal":{"name":"Netherlands Heart Journal","volume":" ","pages":"199-205"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12098215/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Heart rhythm management optimisation of pacemaker recipients using remote monitoring: the HERO registry.\",\"authors\":\"Fleur W Adriaansen, Jaap Seelig, Tim A C de Vries, Leonard Voorhout, Frank P Brouwers, Balazs Manfai, Richard Derksen, Christiaan Aagenborg, Carine J M Doggen, Ron Pisters, Martin E W Hemels\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12471-025-01953-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Current expert consensus recommends remote monitoring (RM) for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). As this recommendation is primarily based on studies involving implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), the HERO (HEart Rhythm management Optimisation of pacemaker recipients using remote monitoring) study aimed to reinforce this recommendation for pacemaker recipients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The exploratory, retrospective, single-centre HERO study included 203 patients with an increased stroke risk (CHA<sub>2</sub>DS<sub>2</sub>-VASc score ≥ 2) but without a history of atrial fibrillation or flutter, who received a pacemaker between January 2016 and April 2018. Occurrence and detection time of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias were analysed in patients with RM (RM+; n = 60) and those without RM (RM-; n = 143), together with CIED adverse events, cardiology visits and anticoagulation adjustments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median age of the patients was 80 (73-85) years, with 55.2% being men. During a median follow-up of 5.0 years, 53.7% were diagnosed with at least one arrhythmic event (RM+ 60.0% vs RM- 51.0%, p = 0.28). The median time from pacemaker implantation to detection of first arrhythmic event was 2.5 (0.5-8.2) years in the RM+ group versus 2.8 (1.2-8.0) years in the RM- group (hazard ratio 0.89; 95% confidence interval 0.59-1.35; p = 0.58). There were no differences in the number of adverse events or anticoagulation adjustments during follow-up. More CIED telephone consultations were conducted in the RM+ group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A substantial proportion of pacemaker patients experienced one or more arrhythmic events during follow-up. The HERO study did not demonstrate a difference in time to detection of the first event when using remote monitoring.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18952,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Netherlands Heart Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"199-205\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12098215/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Netherlands Heart Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-025-01953-4\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Netherlands Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-025-01953-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目前专家一致建议对心脏植入式电子装置(cied)进行远程监测。由于这一建议主要基于涉及植入式心律转复除颤器(ICDs)的研究,HERO(使用远程监测的起搏器受者心律管理优化)研究旨在加强对起搏器受者的建议。方法:探索性、回顾性、单中心HERO研究纳入203例卒中风险增加(CHA2DS2-VASc评分≥ 2)但无房颤或心房颤动史的患者,这些患者在2016年1月至2018年4月期间接受了起搏器。分析RM (RM+)患者心房、室性心律失常的发生及检测时间。n = 60)和无RM组(RM-;n = 143),以及CIED不良事件、心脏病学就诊和抗凝调整。结果:患者年龄中位数为80(73 ~ 85)岁,男性占55.2%。在中位随访5.0年期间,53.7%被诊断为至少一次心律失常事件(RM+ 60.0% vs RM- 51.0%, p = 0.28)。RM+组从起搏器植入到首次发现心律失常事件的中位时间为2.5(0.5-8.2)年,而RM-组为2.8(1.2-8.0)年(风险比0.89;95%置信区间0.59-1.35; p = 0.58)。在随访期间,不良事件或抗凝调整的数量没有差异。RM+组进行了更多的CIED电话咨询。结论:相当比例的起搏器患者在随访期间经历了一次或多次心律失常事件。HERO研究并没有证明在使用远程监测时发现第一个事件的时间上有差异。
Heart rhythm management optimisation of pacemaker recipients using remote monitoring: the HERO registry.
Introduction: Current expert consensus recommends remote monitoring (RM) for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). As this recommendation is primarily based on studies involving implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), the HERO (HEart Rhythm management Optimisation of pacemaker recipients using remote monitoring) study aimed to reinforce this recommendation for pacemaker recipients.
Methods: The exploratory, retrospective, single-centre HERO study included 203 patients with an increased stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2) but without a history of atrial fibrillation or flutter, who received a pacemaker between January 2016 and April 2018. Occurrence and detection time of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias were analysed in patients with RM (RM+; n = 60) and those without RM (RM-; n = 143), together with CIED adverse events, cardiology visits and anticoagulation adjustments.
Results: The median age of the patients was 80 (73-85) years, with 55.2% being men. During a median follow-up of 5.0 years, 53.7% were diagnosed with at least one arrhythmic event (RM+ 60.0% vs RM- 51.0%, p = 0.28). The median time from pacemaker implantation to detection of first arrhythmic event was 2.5 (0.5-8.2) years in the RM+ group versus 2.8 (1.2-8.0) years in the RM- group (hazard ratio 0.89; 95% confidence interval 0.59-1.35; p = 0.58). There were no differences in the number of adverse events or anticoagulation adjustments during follow-up. More CIED telephone consultations were conducted in the RM+ group.
Conclusion: A substantial proportion of pacemaker patients experienced one or more arrhythmic events during follow-up. The HERO study did not demonstrate a difference in time to detection of the first event when using remote monitoring.
期刊介绍:
The scope of the Netherlands Heart Journal is to contribute to the national and international literature by publishing scientific papers in the field of cardiovascular medicine. It also provides a platform for Continuing Medical Education for cardiologists and those in training for the speciality of cardiology in the Netherlands.
The Netherlands Heart Journal is made available to cardiologists, cardiologists in training, cardiopulmonary surgeons, cardiopulmonary surgeons in training, internists and paediatric cardiologists. The journal is the official journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology.