Adriaansen Fleur W, Seelig Jaap, de Vries Tim A C, Voorhout Leonard, Brouwers Frank P, Manfai Balazs, Derksen Richard, Aagenborg Christiaan, Doggen Carine J M, Pisters Ron, Hemels Martin E W
Department of Cardiology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Radboud Health Academy, Radboud University Medical Centre, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Neth Heart J. 2025 Jun;33(6):199-205. doi: 10.1007/s12471-025-01953-4. Epub 2025 May 9.
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.
The exploratory, retrospective, single-centre HERO study included 203 patients with an increased stroke risk (CHADS-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.
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.
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.
当前专家共识推荐对心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)进行远程监测(RM)。由于该推荐主要基于涉及植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)的研究,HERO(使用远程监测优化起搏器接受者的心律管理)研究旨在强化针对起搏器接受者的这一推荐。
探索性、回顾性、单中心的HERO研究纳入了203例卒中风险增加(CHADS-VASc评分≥2)但无房颤或房扑病史的患者,这些患者在2016年1月至2018年4月期间接受了起搏器植入。对有远程监测的患者(RM+;n = 60)和无远程监测的患者(RM-;n = 143)的房性和室性心律失常的发生情况及检测时间进行了分析,同时分析了CIED不良事件、心内科就诊情况及抗凝调整情况。
患者的中位年龄为80(73 - 85)岁,男性占55.2%。在中位随访5.0年期间,53.7%的患者被诊断出至少发生一次心律失常事件(RM+组为60.0%,RM-组为51.0%,p = 0.28)。RM+组从起搏器植入到首次检测到心律失常事件的中位时间为2.5(0.5 - 8.2)年,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)。随访期间不良事件数量或抗凝调整方面无差异。RM+组进行的CIED电话咨询更多。
相当一部分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研究未显示使用远程监测时首次事件检测时间存在差异。