4.6 Article

Low risk of electromagnetic interference between smartphones and contemporary implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Journal

EUROPACE
Volume 18, Issue 5, Pages 726-731

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euv374

Keywords

Mobile phone; Smartphone; Implantable cardioverter defibrillator; Electromagnetic interference; Magnet effect

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Manufacturers of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) recommend that cell phones be maintained at a distance of similar to 15 cm from the implanted device in order to avoid risk of dysfunction due to electromagnetic interference (EMI). Data relating to this issue are outdated and do not reflect modern technology. Our aim was to evaluate whether EMI is still an issue with contemporary ICDs and smartphones. Consecutive patients implanted with a wireless-enabled ICD were tested for potential interference with two models of recent 4G smartphones in conditions intended to maximize risk of EMI. A magnet effect (due to the phone speakers) was tested by placing the smartphones in the standby mode directly over the ICD generator. The presence of EMI artefacts on the real-time electrograms was evaluated by placing the smartphones in the standby, dialling, and operating modes directly over the generator casing and over the parasternal region in the vicinity of the ventricular lead. A total of 63 patients equipped with 29 different models of single, dual, or biventricular ICDs from five major manufacturers were included. None of the patients showed any evidence of interference with the smartphones during any of the 882 tests. The risk of EMI between modern smartphones and contemporary ICDs is low. This is probably due to the filters incorporated in the ICDs and low emission by the phones, as well as the small size of the magnets in the smartphones tested. NCT02330900 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available