Magnetic Interference on Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices From Apple iPhone MagSafe Technology

Transitioning from 0.5 to 0.9 mT: Protecting against inadvertent activation of magnet mode in active implants

The "5 gauss line" is a phrase that is likely to be familiar to everyone working with MRI, but what is its significance, how was it defined, and what changes are currently in progress? This review explores the history of 5 gauss (0.5 mT) as a threshold for protecting against inadvertently putting cardiac pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and other active implantable medical devices into a "magnet mode." Additionally, it describes the background to the recent change of this threshold to 9 gauss (0.9 mT) in the International Standard IEC 60601-2-33 edition 4.0 that defines basic safety requirements for MRI. Practical implications of this change and some ongoing and emerging issues are also discussed.

New-generation electronic appliances and cardiac implantable electronic devices: a systematic literature review of mechanisms and in vivo studies

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) functions are susceptible to electromagnetic interference (EMI) from electromagnetic fields (EMF). Data on EMI risks from new-generation electronic appliances (EA) are limited.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic literature review on the mechanisms of EMI, current evidence, and recently published trials evaluating the effect of EMF on CIEDs from electric vehicles (EV), smartphone, and smartwatch technology and summarize its safety data.

METHODS

Electronic databases, including PubMed and EMBASE, were searched for in vivo studies evaluating EMF strength and incidence between CIEDs and commercial EVs, new-generation smartphones, and new-generation smartwatches.

RESULTS

A total of ten studies (three on EVs, five on smartphones, one on smartphones, one on smartphones and smartwatches) were included in our systematic review. There was no report of EMI incidence associated with EVs or smartwatches. Magnet-containing smartphones (iPhone 12) can cause EMI when placed directly over CIEDs - thereby triggering the magnet mode; otherwise, no report of EMI was observed with other positions or smartphone models.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests CIED recipients are safe from general interaction with EVs/HEVs, smartphones, and smartwatches. Strictly, results may only be applied to commercial brands or models tested in the published studies. There is limited data on EMI risk from EVs wireless charging and smartphones with MagSafe technology.

Comparative analysis of energy transfer mechanisms for neural implants

As neural implant technologies advance rapidly, a nuanced understanding of their powering mechanisms becomes indispensable, especially given the long-term biocompatibility risks like oxidative stress and inflammation, which can be aggravated by recurrent surgeries, including battery replacements. This review delves into a comprehensive analysis, starting with biocompatibility considerations for both energy storage units and transfer methods. The review focuses on four main mechanisms for powering neural implants: Electromagnetic, Acoustic, Optical, and Direct Connection to the Body. Among these, Electromagnetic Methods include techniques such as Near-Field Communication (RF). Acoustic methods using high-frequency ultrasound offer advantages in power transmission efficiency and multi-node interrogation capabilities. Optical methods, although still in early development, show promising energy transmission efficiencies using Near-Infrared (NIR) light while avoiding electromagnetic interference. Direct connections, while efficient, pose substantial safety risks, including infection and micromotion disturbances within neural tissue. The review employs key metrics such as specific absorption rate (SAR) and energy transfer efficiency for a nuanced evaluation of these methods. It also discusses recent innovations like the Sectored-Multi Ring Ultrasonic Transducer (S-MRUT), Stentrode, and Neural Dust. Ultimately, this review aims to help researchers, clinicians, and engineers better understand the challenges of and potentially create new solutions for powering neural implants.

The Use of Electrocardiogram Smartwatches in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electrical Devices

Unlimited access to ECGs using an over-the-counter smartwatch constitutes a real revolution for our discipline, and the application is rapidly expanding to include patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) such as pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). CIEDs require periodic evaluation and adjustment by healthcare professionals. In addition, implanted patients often present with symptoms that may be related to their PMs or ICDs. An ECG smartwatch could reveal information about device functioning, confirm normal device function, or aid in the case of device troubleshooting. In this review, we delve into the available evidence surrounding smartwatches with ECG registration and their integration into the care of patients with implanted pacemakers and ICDs. We explore safety considerations and the benefits and limitations associated with these wearables, drawing on relevant studies and case series from our own experience. By analyzing the current landscape of this emerging technology, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview that facilitates informed decision-making for both healthcare professionals and patients.

Case Study of Intrathecal Baclofen Pump Motor Shutdown Secondary to the Effect of the Magnetic Field Created by a Personal Digital Tablet and Magnetic Cover

ABSTRACT

We present the case of a posttraumatic C6 AIS A tetraplegic patient with spasticity treated with an intrathecal baclofen pump, who noticed a transient increase in his spasticity each time he used a digital tablet (Ipad) protected by a magnetic shell placed on his abdomen. Telemetry confirmed transient motor shutdown responsible for withdrawal symptoms each time the tablet was used. Symptoms resolved after the removal of the protective shell. Effects of magnetic fields like magnetic resonance imaging are known to stall the pump rotor, which recover at the end of magnetic resonance imaging. Other sources of magnetic fields like laptops or new smartphones with magnet charging technology may also interfere with implanted devices. We therefore recommend patients to avoid close contact of magnetic devices with the intrathecal baclofen pump. More robust studies are warranted to assess the effect of the new magnetic technologies on the function of intrathecal pumps.

Interference of cardiac implantable electronic devices and computed tomography imaging in the current era with a phantom model

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac implantable electronic devices are used in patients with cardiac rhythm disorders. Computed tomography irradiation is not prohibited for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices, despite adverse events being reported. Hence, appropriate preparation and knowledge are required before computed tomography irradiation can be carried out in these patients. Since there is limited knowledge or literature about the influence of computed tomography irradiation in cases with recent cardiac implantable electronic devices, we aimed to evaluate the adverse events and elucidate the necessary and sufficient safety measures associated with this therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We placed cardiac implantable electronic devices on an anthropomorphic phantom model and observed their electrical activity in electrograms, while various protocols of computed tomography irradiation were implemented and adverse events evaluated. Oversensing with pauses of up to 3.2 s was observed in standard computed tomography protocols, but ventricular tachyarrhythmia or other clinically significant events could not be confirmed. Oversensing with pauses of up to 8.0 s was observed and ventricular tachyarrhythmia was detected in the maximum-dose protocols. However, treatments such as antitachycardia pacing or shock therapy for ventricular tachyarrhythmia were not observed because of their absence.

CONCLUSION

Computed tomography irradiation for patients using cardiac implantable electronic devices is highly unlikely to cause clinically significant adverse events with the device settings and computed tomography protocols currently being used. Changing or monitoring the device settings routinely before computed tomography irradiation is not necessarily required for most patients.

High-power chargers for electric vehicles: are they safe for patients with pacemakers and defibrillators?

AIMS

Battery electric vehicle (BEV) sales and use are rapidly expanding. Battery electric vehicles, along with their charging stations, are a potential source of electromagnetic interference (EMI) for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The new 'high-power' charging stations have the potential to create strong electromagnetic fields and induce EMI in CIEDs, and their safety has not been evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 130 CIED patients performed 561 charges of four BEVs and a test vehicle (350 kW charge capacity) using high-power charging stations under continuous 6-lead electrocardiogram monitoring. The charging cable was placed directly over the CIED, and devices were programmed to maximize the chance of EMI detection. Cardiac implantable electronic devices were re-interrogated after patients charged all BEVs and the test vehicle for evidence of EMI. There were no incidences of EMI, specifically no over-sensing, pacing inhibition, inappropriate tachycardia detection, mode switching, or spontaneous reprogramming. The risk of EMI on a patient-based analysis is 0/130 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0%-2%], and the risk of EMI on a charge-based analysis is 0/561 (95% CI 0%-0.6%). The effective magnetic field along the charging cable was 38.65 µT and at the charging station was 77.9 µT.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of electric cars with high-power chargers by patients with cardiac devices appears to be safe with no evidence of clinically relevant EMI. Reasonable caution, by minimizing the time spent in close proximity with the charging cables, is still advised as the occurrence of very rare events cannot be excluded from our results.

Safety evaluation of smart scales, smart watches, and smart rings with bioimpedance technology shows evidence of potential interference in cardiac implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

Smart scales, smart watches, and smart rings with bioimpedance technology may create interference in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine interference at CIEDs with simulations and benchtop testing, and to compare the results with maximum values defined in the ISO 14117 electromagnetic interference standard for these devices.

METHODS

The interference at pacing electrodes was determined by simulations on a male and a female computable model. A benchtop evaluation of representative CIEDs from 3 different manufacturers as specified in the ISO 14117 standard also was performed.

RESULTS

Simulations showed evidence of interference with voltage values exceeding threshold values defined in the ISO 14117 standard. The level of interference varied with the frequency and amplitude of the bioimpedance signal, and between male and female models. The level of interference generated with smart scale and smart rings simulations was lower than with smart watches. Across device manufacturers, generators demonstrated susceptibility to oversensing and pacing inhibition at different signal amplitudes and frequencies.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evaluated the safety of smart scales, smart watches, and smart rings with bioimpedance technology via simulation and testing. Our results indicate that these consumer electronic devices could interfere in patients with CIEDs. The present findings do not recommend the use of these devices in this population due to potential interference.

The Year in Electrophysiology: Selected Highlights From 2022

This special article is the fifth in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief, Dr Kaplan, the Associate Editor-in-Chief, Dr Augoustides, and the editorial board for the opportunity to author this series, which summarizes the key research papers in the electrophysiology (EP) field relevant to cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesiologists. These articles are shaping perioperative EP procedures and practices, such as pulsed-field ablation, cryoablation for first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation, advancements in conduction system pacing, safety issues related to smartphones and cardiac implantable electronic devices, and alterations in EP workflow as the world emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic. Special emphasis is placed on the implications of these advancements for the anesthetic care of patients undergoing EP procedures.

High-Fidelity 3D Stray Magnetic Field Mapping of Smartphones to Address Safety Considerations with Active Implantable Electronic Medical Devices

Case reports indicate that magnets in smartphones could be a source of electromagnetic interference (EMI) for active implantable medical devices (AIMD), which could lead to device malfunction, compromising patient safety. Recognizing this challenge, we implemented a high-fidelity 3D magnetic field mapping (spatial resolution 1 mm) setup using a three-axis Hall probe and teslameter, controlled by a robot (COSI Measure). With this setup, we examined the stray magnetic field of an iPhone 13 Pro, iPhone 12, and MagSafe charger to identify sources of magnetic fields for the accurate risk assessment of potential interferences with AIMDs. Our measurements revealed that the stray fields of the annular array of magnets, the wide-angle camera, and the speaker of the smartphones exceeded the 1 mT limit defined by ISO 14117:2019. Our data-driven safety recommendation is that an iPhone 13 Pro should be kept at least 25 mm away from an AIMD to protect it from unwanted EMI interactions. Our study addresses safety concerns due to potential device-device interactions between smartphones and AIMDs and will help to define data-driven safety guidelines. We encourage vendors of electronic consumer products (ECP) to provide information on the magnetic fields of their products and advocate for the inclusion of smartphones in the risk assessment of EMI with AIMDs.

Interference With Implanted Upper Airway Stimulation Device by Phones With Magnet Technology

Newer iPhone models with MagSafe magnetic technology can cause electromagnetic interference with the Inspire upper airway stimulator device (a surgical implant for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea). Laryngoscope, 132:2513-2515, 2022.

Magnetic field interactions of smartwatches and portable electronic devices with CIEDs - Did we open a Pandora's box?

Introduction

Magnetic interaction of portable electronic devices (PEDs), such as state-of-the art mobile phones, with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has been reported. The aim of the study was to quantify the magnetic fields of latest generation smartwatches and other PEDs and to evaluate and predict their risk of CIED interactions.

Methods

High resolution magnetic field characterization of five smartwatches (Apple Watch 6/7, Fitbit Sense, Samsung Galaxy 3, Withings Scanwatch) was performed using a novel magnetic field camera. Ex vivo measurements of the minimal safety distance (MSD) at which no mode switch can be observed were performed between 11 PEDs and six representative CIEDs.

Results

Maximal 1 mT distances ranged between 10 mm (Withings) and 19 mm (Fitbit and AppleWatch), and 1 mT volumes between 6 cm3 (Withings) and 19 cm3 (Fitbit). All these measures were observed only for the back side of the smartwatches. While most smartwatches with measured 1 mT distance < 15 mm posed low ex vivo interaction within a distance of < 10 mm, PEDs such as electronic pens and in-ear-headphones with measured 1 mT distance > 15 mm showed device interaction up to > 15 mm. Linear regression analysis showed a linear relationship of the MSD with 1 mT distance (B coefficient: 0.46; 95 %-CI: 0.25-0.67, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Smartwatches are safer compared to other PEDs such as electronic pens or in-ear headphones with regards to CIED interaction. With a standardized magnetic field camera, the risk assessment of CIED interaction of novel PEDs is feasible.

Actuators for Implantable Devices: A Broad View

The choice of actuators dictates how an implantable biomedical device moves. Specifically, the concept of implantable robots consists of the three pillars: actuators, sensors, and powering. Robotic devices that require active motion are driven by a biocompatible actuator. Depending on the actuating mechanism, different types of actuators vary remarkably in strain/stress output, frequency, power consumption, and durability. Most reviews to date focus on specific type of actuating mechanism (electric, photonic, electrothermal, etc.) for biomedical applications. With a rapidly expanding library of novel actuators, however, the granular boundaries between subcategories turns the selection of actuators a laborious task, which can be particularly time-consuming to those unfamiliar with actuation. To offer a broad view, this study (1) showcases the recent advances in various types of actuating technologies that can be potentially implemented in vivo, (2) outlines technical advantages and the limitations of each type, and (3) provides use-specific suggestions on actuator choice for applications such as drug delivery, cardiovascular, and endoscopy implants.

[Electromagnetic interference : Pacemakers, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator]

Patients with cardiac pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices (CRT) are exposed to different types of electromagnetic interference (EMI) at home and at work. Due to the constantly increasing role of electrically active appliances in daily use and the introduction of new therapy concepts such as the leadless cardiac pacemaker and the subcutaneous defibrillator, this topic is of great relevance. The further development of the implanted devices and the almost complete use of bipolar leads has reduced the overall risk of EMI. This review article provides information about the current status of possible interference in the private environment and how to avoid it. In addition, information is provided on how to deal with occupational sources of interference.

Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Magnetic Interference by the iPhone 12: Is It Clinically Significant?

The iPhone 12 series (Apple, Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) contains a circular array of magnets around a central charging coil (compatible with "Magsafe" technology). The device was recently reported to have magnetic interference with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). We sought to test the electromagnetic interference of the iPhone 12 in inhibiting life-saving therapies of ICDs in clinical settings. After obtaining written informed consent, an iPhone 12 was placed over the device generators of 17 patients in the ICD clinic. Device interrogation was performed immediately before and after placing the iPhone over the ICD generator to evaluate for any inhibition of device therapies. To emulate a real-world scenario, the iPhone 12 was not placed directly over the skin above the device generator but instead was positioned over the patients' clothes. None of the device interrogations revealed interruption of device therapies due to the iPhone. We concluded that, despite the iPhone having shown in vitro interference of ICD functioning, its effects are not clinically relevant in vivo. Larger studies need to be performed to confirm this finding and guide safety recommendations regarding the use of iPhones containing magnets by patients with implanted ICDs.

The Gallant™ system heart rhythm management device: making a connection

Implantable cardiac defibrillators have revolutionized the way we prevent sudden cardiac death via arrhythmias. The addition of cardiac resynchronization pacing to defibrillators has broadened that treatment to include patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. As with all technology, new devices and platforms expand the capabilities and interface with patients across the world. This review discusses the evolution from the initial modalities and methods of communication of implantable devices up to the most recent advances in implantable defibrillators and their integration into patient lives and clinical practice. This review is focused on the integration of Bluetooth communication into modern healthcare with the Gallant™ family of devices, the first branded launch by Abbott Laboratories.

CE: Guideline-Directed Cardiac Devices for Patients with Heart Failure

ABSTRACT

Heart failure affects over 6.2 million adults in the United States and is expected to affect over 8 million by 2030. The U.S. one-year mortality rate is almost 30% among Medicare beneficiaries. Technological advances have produced several new cardiac devices that are available for therapy and symptom management. This article reviews current device therapies for heart failure and uses a composite case to demonstrate how bedside nurses can help patients understand treatment options related to their disease process and care for them through this experience.

Magnetic field interactions between current consumer electronics and cardiac implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

Electronic products, including the iPhone 12, Apple Watch Series 6, and 2nd Generation AirPods, contain magnets to facilitate wireless charging. Permanent magnets may affect CIED magnet mode features by causing pacemakers to pace asynchronously and defibrillators to suspend arrhythmia detection. This study determined if CIEDs are affected by static magnetic fields from commonly used portable electronics (PE) at any distance and intends to reinforce FDA recommendations concerning consumer PE which contain permanent magnets.

METHODS

The maximum magnet field measurement was evaluated by a Gauss meter. The interaction between PE and CIEDs from Boston Scientific and Medtronic were tested ex vivo using a body torso model. The CIED was placed in physiologic saline, and the PE was placed at the surface and at increasing distances of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 cm. Interactions were recorded by assessment of magnet mode status.

RESULTS

The iPhone 12 had almost three times the static magnetic field measured at the surface as the iPhone XR, but magnetic field strength decreased dramatically with increasing distance. At the surface of the model, PE triggered magnet mode in all CIEDs. The maximum interaction distance for all combinations of CIEDs and Apple products was 1.5 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

The iPhone 12 produces a stronger static magnetic field than previous iPhone models. Magnets in PE tested will not interact with CIEDs when they are 15 cm from the implanted device. Since no interaction was observed beyond 1.5 cm, it is unlikely that magnet mode activation will occur during most daily activities.

Safety and Efficacy of Magnet Use to Temporarily Inhibit Inappropriate Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Emergency Situations: A Case Report

Introduction: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) represents a major advancement in ICD technology. Inappropriate shocks (IAS) occur in more than 3.1% of the population with S-ICD each year and are usually followed by admission to the emergency department (ED). In this setting, the disabling of IAS is mandatory during a pseudo-electrical storm (ES). This report describes the strategies that can be followed in order to temporarily inhibit IAS in critical care settings with the use of magnets.

Case presentation: An S-ICD was implanted more than 6 weeks prior to presentation in a 68-year-old man with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. In the ED, the patient experienced 3 IAS in the last hour. A Medtronic magnet was applied to stop IAS, as the specific programmer was not available. The maneuver interrupted the IAS. In order to verify the universal magnetic response of the S-ICD, six different magnets and one smartphone with MagSafe technology were tested. All magnet models suspended arrhythmia detection and IAS, while the smartphone did not cause magnet interferences.

Conclusions: This report demonstrates the safety and efficacy of all clinical magnet models in inhibiting IAS. In case of pseudo-ES, any type of magnet allows ED providers to easily and rapidly disable the functionality of the devices when appropriate.

Interference by Modern Smartphones and Accessories with Cardiac Pacemakers and Defibrillators

Purpose of Review

The risk of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) interference from cell phones was previously thought to be low based on older studies. Current generation of smartphones have incorporated more magnets for optimization of wireless charging, attachment of accessories, and convenience functionalities. These magnets have the potential to cause CIEDs to inadvertently revert into magnet mode. The purpose of this review is to summarize recent findings on smartphones and their accessories causing interference on CIEDs.

Recent Findings

Recent reports have demonstrated that the iPhone 12 series and accessories have the capability to cause CIED magnetic interference.

Summary

Current generation of smartphones, smartwatches, wireless headphones, and accessories have the potential to cause CIEDs to revert into magnet mode in both in vivo and ex vivo experiments. The risk of a clinically significant event is unlikely as long as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendations are followed; keeping smartphones and accessories at least six inches away from CIEDs.

iPhone 12 MagSafe technology and cardiac implantable devices: assessment of the actual risk

Background

Pacemaker (PM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) are equipped with a magnetic sensor activated by external application of magnets to easily manage some functions of these devices. If activated inadvertently or outside a controlled environment and without the supervision of clinical personnel, this magnetic mode introduces a potential risk. In reality, the possibility of a static magnetic field affecting a PM or ICD is remote. However, the presence of the magnet in the iPhone 12 made the possibility of inadvertently activating the magnetic switch of PM and ICD less remote.

Objective

This study investigates the effects of magnetic interference of the iPhone 12 on a large set of cardiac implantable devices representative of the current market and proposes adequate rules of conduct.

Methods

We investigated the risk of the magnetic interference of the iPhone 12 and its MagSafe accessories on a comprehensive set of PMs and ICDs, including the subcutaneous ICD. For the first time, the magnetic interference phenomena were correlated with the magnetic field levels measured all around iPhone 12.

Results

We discovered that the magnets inside iPhone 12 trigger the magnetic mode in the 12 tested devices up to a distance of 1 cm.

Conclusions

Considering the implications related to the activation of the magnetic switch, to date, it is advisable to follow Apple's indications relating to the safety distance of 15 cm, which is widely compatible with the results obtained from this paper and in line with the indications provided by the implantable cardiac device manufacturers.

Magnetic field-induced interactions between phones containing magnets and cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: Flip it to be safe?

BACKGROUND

Recent case reports and small studies have reported activation of the magnet-sensitive switches in cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) by the new iPhone 12 series, initiating asynchronous pacing in pacemakers and suspension of antitachycardia therapies in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this prospective single-center observational study was to quantify the risk of magnetic field interactions of the iPhone 12 with CIEDs.

METHODS

A representative model of each CIED series from all manufacturers was tested ex vivo. Incidence and minimum distance necessary for magnet mode triggering were analyzed in 164 CIED patients with either the front or the back of the phone facing the device. The magnetic field of the iPhone 12 was analyzed using a 3-axis Hall probe.

RESULTS

Ex vivo, magnetic interference occurred in 84.6% with the back compared to 46.2% with the front of the iPhone 12 facing the CIED. In vivo, activation of the magnet-sensitive switch occurred in 30 CIED patients (18.3%; 21 pacemaker, 9 ICD) when the iPhone 12 was placed in close proximity over the CIED pocket and the back of the phone was facing the skin. Multiple binary logistic regression analysis identified implantation depth (95% confidence interval 0.02-0.24) as an independent predictor of magnet-sensitive switch activation.

CONCLUSION

Magnetic field interactions occur only in close proximity and with precise alignment of the iPhone 12 and CIEDs. It is important to advise CIED patients to not put the iPhone 12 directly on the skin above the CIED. Further recommendations are not necessary.