4.2 Article

Safety of Implantable Pacemakers and Cardioverter Defibrillators in the Magnetic Field of a Novel Remote Magnetic Navigation System

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 10, Pages 1136-1141

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2010.01806.x

Keywords

electromagnetic interference; pacemaker; defibrillator; remote magnetic navigation system

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Methods: A total of 121 devices (77 pacemakers, 44 ICDs) were exposed to an activated NIOBE II (R) Magnetic Navigation System (Stereotaxis, St. Louis, MO, USA) at the maximal magnetic field strength of 0.1 Tesla and evaluated in vitro with respect to changes in parameter settings of the device, changes of the battery status/detection of elective replacement indication, or alterations of data stored in the device. Results: A total of 115 out of 121 (95%) devices were free of changes in parameter settings, battery status, and internally stored data after repeated exposition to the electromagnetic field of the remote magnetic navigation system. Interference with the magnetic navigation field was observed in 6 pacemakers, resulting in reprogramming to a power-on-reset mode with or without detection of the elective replacement indication in 5 devices and abnormal variance of battery status in one device. All pacemakers could be reprogrammed to the initial modes and the battery status proved to be normal some minutes after the pacemakers had been removed from the magnetic field. Conclusion: Interference of a remote magnetic navigation system (at maximal field strength) with pacemakers and ICDs not connected to leads with antitachycardic detection and therapies turned off is rare. Occurring functional abnormalities could be reprogrammed in our sample. An in vitro study will give information about interference of devices connected to leads. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 21, pp. 1136-1141).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available