Digital music players cause interference with interrogation telemetry for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators without affecting device function

Bioimpedance analysis is safe in patients with implanted cardiac electronic devices

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is an increase in the number of patients worldwide with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Current medical practice guidelines warn against performing bioimpedance analysis (BIA) in this group of patients in order to avoid any electromagnetic interference. These recommendations restrict using the BIA in patients undergoing heart failure or with nutrition disorders in whom BIA could be of major interest in detecting peripheral congestion and to help guide treatment. The present study was conducted to evaluate whether BIA caused electromagnetic interference in patients having CIEDs.

METHODS

Patient enrollment was conducted during routine face-to-face consultations for scheduled CIEDs interrogations. Device battery voltage, lead impedance, pacing thresholds and device electrograms were recorded before and after each BIA measurement to detect any electromagnetic interference or oversensing.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients were enrolled. During BIA, no significant changes in battery voltage, lead impedance or pacing thresholds were detected, nor were there any inappropriate over- or undersensing observed in intracardiac electrograms. Furthermore, 6- and 12-month follow-up did not reveal any changes in CIEDs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows no interference in patients equipped with CIEDs and suggests that BIA can be securely performed in these patients. Trial registered under the identifier NCT03045822.

Clinical management of electromagnetic interferences in patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: review of the literature and focus on magnetic resonance conditional devices

The number of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has greatly increased in the last 10 years. Many electronic devices used in daily activities generate electromagnetic interferences (EMIs) that can interact with CIEDs. In clinical practice, it is very important to know the potential sources of EMIs and their effect on CIEDs in order to understand how to manage or mitigate them. A very important source of EMI is magnetic resonance (MR), which is considered nowadays the diagnostic gold standard for different anatomical districts. In this review, we focused on the effects of EMI on CIEDs and on the clinical management. Moreover, we made a clarification about MR and CIEDs.In patients with CIEDs, EMIs may cause potentially serious and even life-threatening complications (inappropriate shocks, device malfunctions, inhibition of pacing in pacemaker-dependent patients) and may rarely dictate device replacement. The association of inappropriate shocks with increased mortality highlights the importance of minimizing the occurrence of EMI. Adequate advice and recommendations about the correct management of EMIs in patients with CIEDs are required to avoid all complications during hospitalization and in daily life. Furthermore, the article focused on actual management about MR and CIEDs.

Interference between active implanted medical devices and electromagnetic field emitting devices is rare but real: results of an incidence study in a population of physicians in France

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Assessing the behavior of active implanted medical devices (AIMDs) in response to electromagnetic field (EMF) transmitters is a current issue of great importance. Given the numerous telecommunication systems and our lack of knowledge as to the impact of electromagnetic effects, this study investigated the reality of possible AIMD disturbance by EMFs by interviewing health professionals.

METHOD

A self-administered postal questionnaire was sent to almost 5,000 physicians in five specialties: cardiology; endocrinology; ears, nose, and throat; urology; and neurology. It collected data on the existence and annual number of incidents observed and the conditions under which they occurred, the EMF sources involved, and the means of managing the malfunctions.

RESULTS

A total of 1,188 physicians agreed to participate. Sixteen percent of participants reported cases of implant failure, three-quarters of whom, mainly in cardiology, reported rates of at least one incident per year-amounting to more than 100 incidents per year in all. Severity appeared to be moderate (discomfort or transient symptoms), but frequently required resetting or, more rarely, replacing the device. Some serious incidents were, however, reported. The sources implicated were basically of two types: electronic security systems (antitheft and airport gates) and medical electromagnetic radiation devices. These incidents were poorly reported within the public health system, preventing follow-up and effective performance of alert and surveillance functions.

CONCLUSION

Although minor, the risk of interference between EMF sources and AIMDs is real and calls for vigilance. It particularly concerns antitheft and airport security gates, though other sources may also cause incidents.

Electromagnetic interference and implanted cardiac devices: the nonmedical environment (part I)

The number of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), such as permanent pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, is dramatically rising due to an aging population and recent clinical trials showing benefits in mortality and morbidity. Coupled with this increase in the number of patients with CIEDs is the proliferation of technology that emits electromagnetic signals, which can potentially interfere with CIED function through electromagnetic interference (EMI). Despite continuous efforts of manufacturers to create "EMI-proof" CIEDs, adverse events from EMI still occur. Physicians caring for patients with CIEDs should be aware of potential sources of EMI and appropriate management options. This 2-part review aims to provide a contemporary overview of the current knowledge regarding risks attributable to EMI interactions from the most common nonmedical (Part I) and medical (Part II) sources.

Effect of bioimpedance body composition analysis on function of implanted cardiac devices

BACKGROUND

It is routinely recommended that patients with pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-D) avoid bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)--a commonly used method to estimate body composition--because of the concern for the potential for BIA interference with pacemaker or ICD function. However, the prevalence of such interference is not known.

OBJECTIVE

Assess for incidence of interference between BIA and ICD or CRT-D devices.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty patients with heart failure and cardiac implanted electronic devices (50% ICD, 50% CRT-D) underwent BIA during real-time device interrogation to detect interference. Study patients were 90% male, with mean age 54 ± 14 years, and mean LVEF 23 ± 11%. Devices from all four leading cardiac device manufacturers were included. Device therapies were temporarily disabled to prevent inappropriate shocks. During body composition testing using BIA, no evidence of interference with ICD function was seen in any patient, including no telemetry disruption, no oversensing on any lead, and no patient symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the manufacturers' recommendation to avoid BIA in patients with ICDs, this study showed no evidence of any interference in 20 patients. Bioimpedance analysis might be safe in such patients, but further confirmatory studies are required.

Do media players cause interference with pacemakers?

BACKGROUND

Electrical devices generate electromagnetic fields that may interfere with pacemakers. Media players cause telemetry interference with pacemakers, but it is not known whether they cause direct interference with pacemakers. The purpose of this study was to examine the interaction between pacemakers and 3 different media players.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized study, 54 patients with dual chamber pacemakers who were in sinus rhythm underwent baseline observation, followed by observation under telemetry communication. These patients were then randomly evaluated with 3 media players (iPod 3G, iPod Photo, and iPod Touch Apple, Cupertino, CA) with and without telemetry communication for 1 minute each. Patients were monitored for pacemaker malfunction using a single-channel ECG during exposure to media players. The pacemaker was interrogated after each exposure and an interrogation report was printed for evaluation. Pacemaker interference was categorized as type I, II, or III. Types I and II interference described telemetry interference and type III interference was defined as any direct interference with pacemaker function or programmed parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients (29 men and 25 women; mean age 77.2 +/- 9.3 y) were evaluated. In total, of the 162 tests (for telemetry interference) 36.4% were positive (Type I and II). Type III interference was also evaluated in 162 tests and none showed any evidence of direct interference.

CONCLUSION

Media players cause telemetry interference with pacemakers, but they do not directly interfere with pacemaker function.

A media player causes clinically significant telemetry interference with implantable loop recorders

BACKGROUND

The implantable loop recorder is a useful diagnostic tool for intermittent cardiovascular symptoms because it can automatically record arrhythmias as well as a patient-triggered ECG. Media players have been shown to cause telemetry interference with pacemakers. Telemetry interference may be important in patients with implantable loop recorders because capturing a patient-triggered ECG requires a telemetry link between a hand-held activator and the implanted device. The purpose of this study was to determine if a media player causes interference with implantable loop recorders.

METHODS

Fourteen patients with implantable loop recorders underwent evaluation for interference with a 15 GB third generation iPod (Apple, Inc.) media player. All patients had the Reveal Plus (Medtronic, Inc.) implantable loop recorder. We tested for telemetry interference on the programmer by first establishing a telemetry link with the loop recorder and then, the media player was placed next to it, first turned off and then, on. We evaluated for telemetry interference between the activator and the implanted device by placing the activator over the device (normal use) and the media player next to it, first turned off and then, on. We made 5 attempts to capture a patient-triggered ECG by depressing the activator switch 5 times while the media player was off or on.

RESULTS

Telemetry interference on the programmer screen, consisting of either high frequency spikes or blanking of the ECG channel was seen in all patients. Telemetry interference with the activator resulted in failure to capture an event in 7 patients. In one of these patients, a green indicator light on the activator suggested that a patient-triggered event was captured, but loop recorder interrogation did not show a captured event. In the remaining 7 patients, an event was captured and appropriately recognized by the device at least 1 out of 5 times.

CONCLUSION

A media player playing in close proximity to an implanted loop recorder may interfere with capture of a patient-triggered event. Patients should be advised to keep media players away from their implanted loop recorder.