PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15475813

Electromagnetic interference in cardiac rhythm management devices.

Abstract

Clinicians caring for cardiac device patients with implanted pacemakers or cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are frequently asked questions by their patients concerning electromagnetic interference (EMI) sources and the devices. EMI may be radiated or conducted and may be present in many different forms including (but not limited to) radiofrequency waves, microwaves, ionizing radiation, acoustic radiation, static and pulsed magnetic fields, and electric currents. Manufacturers have done an exemplary job of interference protection with device features such as titanium casing, signal filtering, interference rejection circuits, feedthrough capacitors, noise reversion function, and programmable parameters. Nevertheless, EMI remains a real concern and a potential danger. Many factors influence EMI including those which the patient can regulate (eg, distance from and duration of exposure) and some the patient cannot control (eg, intensity of the EMI field, signal frequency). Potential device responses are many and range from simple temporary oversensing to permanent device damage Several of the more common EMI-generating devices and their likely effects on cardiac devices are considered in the medical, home, and daily living and work environments.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mark W Sweesy, James L Holland, Kerry W Smith. Electromagnetic interference in cardiac rhythm management devices.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00044067-200407000-00007

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Prediction of arrhythmic events with positron emission tomography: PAREPET study design and methods.

BACKGROUND: In medically-treated patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, myocardial viability is associated with a worse prognosis than scar. The risk is especially great with hibernating myocardium (chronic regional dysfunction with reduced resting flow), and the excess mortality appears to be due to sudden cardiac death (SCD). Hibernating myocardium also results in sympathetic nerve dysfunction, which has been independently associated with risk of SCD. OBJECTIVES: PAREPET is a prospective, observational cohort study funded by NHLBI. It is designed to determine whether hibernating myocardium and/or inhomogeneity of sympathetic innervation by positron emission tomography imaging identifies patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who are at high risk for SCD and cardiovascular mortality. METHODS: Patients with documented ischemic cardiomyopathy, an ejection fraction of <or=35%, and with no plans for coronary revascularization will be recruited. Major exclusion criteria include: history of resuscitated SCD, sustained VT, ICD discharge, or unexplained syncope; recent myocardial infarction (30 days), percutaneous coronary intervention (3 months), coronary bypass surgery (1 year); or comorbidities that would be expected to reduce life expectancy to <2 years. All patients will undergo transthoracic echocardiography, and dynamic cardiac positron emission tomography to quantify resting perfusion (13N-ammonia), norepinephrine uptake as an index of sympathetic innervation (11C-meta-hydroxyephedrine), and metabolic viability (18F-2-deoxyglucose during glucose-insulin clamp). The development of SCD or cardiovascular mortality will be determined by telephone follow-up every three months. In patients with an implantable cardiac defibrillator, appropriate device discharge will be considered a surrogate for SCD. CONCLUSION: The PAREPET study will prospectively determine whether the amount of viable dysfunction myocardium and/or cardiac sympathetic dysinnervation is associated with the risk of SCD. It is anticipated that the results of this trial will more specifically identify myocardial substrates of SCD. This will help target therapies intended to reduce arrhythmic death to those patients with the greatest likelihood of benefit.

Arrhythmias, Cardiac↗

Lessons learned from neutral ICD trials.

Multiple prospective randomized trials with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) over the past decade have convincingly established the efficacy of ICD therapy in reducing all-cause mortality, by significantly reducing sudden cardiac death. Nevertheless, four trials have failed to show improved survival. Analysing these, in comparison with the positive trials, provides important information concerning the type of patients not likely to receive benefit from ICDs: (i) those with relatively low mortality (< or = 18% within 2 years of follow-up; (ii) those whose mechanism of death is predominantly non-arrhythmic; (iii) patients early (within 6 weeks) after infarction.

Arrhythmias, Cardiac↗