4.6 Article

Electromagnetic interference with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators from low-frequency electromagnetic fields in vivo

期刊

EUROPACE
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 388-394

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/eus345

关键词

Electromagnetic interference; Pacemaker; ICD; Low-frequency magnetic field; in vivo tests

资金

  1. Finnish Work Environment Fund [107236]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Electromagnetic interference (EMI) can pose a danger to workers with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). At some workplaces electromagnetic fields are high enough to potentially inflict EMI. The purpose of this in vivo study was to evaluate the susceptibility of pacemakers and ICDs to external electromagnetic fields. Methods and results Eleven volunteers with a pacemaker and 13 with an ICD were exposed to sine, pulse, ramp, and square waveform and results magnetic fields with frequencies of 2-200 Hz using Helmholtz coil. The magnetic field flux densities varied to 300 mu T. We also tested the occurrence of EMI from an electronic article surveillance (EAS) gate, an induction, cooktop, and a metal inert gas (MIG) welding machine. All pacemakers were tested with bipolar settings rid three of them also with unipolar sensing configurations. None of the bipolar pacemakers or ICDs tested experienced interference in any of the exposure situations. The three pacemakers with unipolar settings were affected by the highest fields of the Helmholtz coil, and one of them also by the EAS gate and the welding cable. The induction cooktop did not interfere with any of the unipolarly programmed pacemakers. Conclusion Magnetic fields with intensities as high as those used in this study are rare even in industrial working environments. In most cases, employees can return to work after implantation of a bipolar pacemaker or an ICD, after an appropriate risk assessment. Pacemakers programmed to unipolar configurations can cause danger to their users in environments with high electromagnetic fields, and should be avoided, if possible.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据