creators_name: Erdogan, Okan
editors_name: Singh, Balbir
editors_name: Lokhandwala, Yash
editors_name: Francis, Johnson
editors_name: Gupta, Anup
type: journalp
datestamp: 2005-05-02
lastmod: 2011-03-11 08:56:01
metadata_visibility: show
title: Electromagnetic Interference on Pacemakers
ispublished: pub
subjects: ipej
full_text_status: public
keywords: Electromagnetic Interference; pacemakers
abstract: External sources, either within or outside the hospital environment, may interfere with the appropriate function of pacemakers which are being implanted all around the world in current medical practice. The patient and the physician who is responsible for follow-up of the pacing systems may be confronted with some specific problems regarding the various types of electromagnetic interference (EMI). To avoid these unwanted EMI effects one must be aware of this potential problem and need to take some precautions. The effects of EMI on pacemaker function and precautions to overcome some specific problems were discussed in this review article. There are many sources of EMI interacting with pacemakers. Magnetic resonance imaging creates real problem and should be avoided in pacemaker patients. Cellular phones might be responsible for EMI when they were held on the same side with the pacemaker. Otherwise they don't cause any specific type of interaction with pacemakers. Sale security systems are not a problem if one walks through it without lingering in or near it. Patients having unipolar pacemaker systems are prone to develop EMI because of pectoral muscle artifacts during vigorous active physical exercise. 
date: 2002-07
date_type: published
publication: Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal
volume: 2
number: 3
publisher: Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Group
pagerange: 74-78
refereed: TRUE
referencetext: 1. Das G, Eaton J. Pacemaker malfunction following transthoracic countershock. PACE 1981; 4: 487-90.

2. Altamura G, Bianconi L, Lo Bianco F, et al. Transthoracic DC shock may represent a serious hazard in pacemaker dependent patients. PACE 1995; 18: 194-8.

3. Gould L, Patel S, Gomez GI, et al. Pacemaker failure following external defibrillation. PACE 1981; 4: 575-7.

4. Proclemer A, Facchin D, Pagnutti C, et al. Safety of pacemaker implantation prior to radiofrequency ablation of atrioventricular junction in a single session procedure. PACE 2000; 23: 998-1002.

5. Pfeiffer B, Tebbenjohanns J, Schumacher B, et al. Pacemaker function during radiofrequency catheter ablation. PACE 1995; 18: 1037-44.

6.  Irnich W. Interference in pacemakers. PACE 1984; 7: 1021-1048.

7.  Epstein MR, Mayer JE, Duncan BW. Use of an ultrasonic scalpel as an alternative to electrocautery in patients with pacemakers. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 65: 1802-4.

8.  Pavlicek W, Geisinger M, Castle L, et al. The effects of nuclear magnetic resonance on patients with cardiac pacemaker. Radiology 1983; 147: 149-153.

9.  Inbar S, Larson J, Burt T, et al. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with a pacemaker: case report. Am J Med Sci 1993; 305: 174-5.

10.  Vahlhaus C, Somner T, Lewalter T, et al. Interference with cardiac pacemakers by magnetic resonance imaging: are there irreversible changes at 0.5 Tesla? PACE 2001; 24: 489-95.

11.  Hayes DL, Holmes DR, Gray JE, et al. Effect of 1.5 Tesla nuclear magnetic resonance imaging scanner on implanted permanent pacemakers. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987; 10: 782-786.

12. Achenbach S, Moshage W, Diem B, et al. Effects of magnetic resonance imaging on cardiac pacemakers and electrodes. Am Heart J 1997; 134: 467-73.

13.  Kusumoto FM, Pedersen S, Golschlager N. Environmental effects on cardiac pacing systems. In: Kusumoto FM, Golschlager N, eds. Cardiac pacing for the clinician. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2001: 377-94.

14. Lee RW, Huang SK, Mechling E, et al. Runaway atrioventricular sequential pacemaker after radiation therapy. Am J Med 1986; 81: 883-86.

15. Muller Runkel R, Orswolini G, Kalokhe UP. Monitoring the radiation dose to a multiprogrammable pacemaker during radical radiation therapy: a case report. PACE 1990; 12: 1466-70.

16.  Last A. Radiotherapy in patients with cardiac pacemakers. Br J Radiol 1998; 71: 4-10.

17.  Souliman SK, Christie J. Pacemaker failure induced by radiotherapy. PACE 1994; 17: 270-3.

18.  Barbaro V, Bartolini P, Donato A, et al. Do European GSM mobile cellular phones pose a potential risk to pacemaker patients? PACE 1995; 18: 1218-24.

19.  Altamura G, Toscano S, Gentulicci G, et al. Influence of digital and analogue cellular telephones on implanted pacemakers. Eur Heart J 1997; 18: 1632-41.

20. Hayes DL, Wang PJ, Reynolds DW, et al. Interference with cardiac pacemakers by cellular telephones. N Eng J Med 1997; 336: 1473-9.

21. Rasmussen MJ, Hayes DL, Vliestra RE, et al. Can transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation be safely used in patients with permanent pacemakers? Mayo Clin Proc 1988; 63: 443.

22. Duru F, Lauber P, Klaus G, et al. Hospital pager systems may cause interference with pacemaker telemetry. PACE 1998; 21: 2353-9.

23. Miller CS, Leonelli FM, Latham E. Selective interference with pacemaker activity by electrical dental devices. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1998; 85: 33-36.

24. Chew EW, Troughear RH, Kuchar DL, et al. Inappropriate rate change in minute ventilation rate responsive pacemakers due to interference by cardiac monitors. PACE 1997; 20: 276-82.

25. McIvor ME, Reddinger J, Floden E, et al. Study of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator triggering by electronic article surveillance devices. PACE 1998; 21: 1847-61.

26. Harthorne JW. Pacemakers and store security devices. Cardiol Rev 2001; 9: 10-17. 

27. Marco D, Eisinger G, Hayes DL. Testing work environments for electromagnetic interference. PACE 1992; 15: 2016-22.
citation:   Erdogan, Okan  (2002) Electromagnetic Interference on Pacemakers.  [Journal (Paginated)]     
document_url: http://cogprints.org/4307/1/erdogan.htm