ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2025
Heart rhythm management optimisation of pacemaker recipients using remote monitoring: the HERO registry.
Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing cardiovascular care-key insights from the Netherlands Heart Journal 2025.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2026Article
- Remote monitoring in implantable cardiac devices: A care solution or alert pollution?Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025Article
- Studies on ICD guidelines, cardiac amyloidosis in HFpEF, and remote monitoring outcomes.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCurrent 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.
methodsThe exploratory, retrospective, single-centre HERO study included 203 patients with an increased stroke risk (CHA
resultsThe 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.
conclusionA 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.