Electromagnetic Interference of Avalanche Transceivers with Cardiac Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 931-938 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARC DORENKAMP ◽  
FLORIAN BLASCHKE ◽  
KATHLEEN VOIGT ◽  
ECKART FLECK ◽  
STEPHAN GOETZE ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Electromagnetic Interference ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Cardiac Pacemakers ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillators

scholarly journals Electromagnetic Interference with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Causing Inadvertent Shock: Case Report and Review of Current Literature

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. CMC.S10990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Akhtar ◽  
Tariq Bhat ◽  
Mohmad Tantray ◽  
Chris Lafferty ◽  
Saiful Faisal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Current Literature ◽  
Electromagnetic Interference ◽  
Interesting Case ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Normal Functioning ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillators

As the number of patients having implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) devices is increasing, it is important for the physicians and patients to be aware of situations and conditions that can result in interference with normal functioning of these devices. There are multiple cases of malfunction of ICDs reported in literature and it may be of great significance to have an overview of these incidents for appropriate recognition and future prevention. Here we are reviewing the available literature as well as reporting an interesting case of electromagnetic interference (EMI) resulting from leak of current in pool water causing firing of ICD.

Electromagnetic interference in implantable cardioverter defibrillators: present but rare

2016 ◽  
Vol 105 (8) ◽  
pp. 657-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gesa von Olshausen ◽  
Ina-Christine Rondak ◽  
Carsten Lennerz ◽  
Verena Semmler ◽  
Christian Grebmer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Electromagnetic Interference ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillators

scholarly journals Electromagnetic Interference with Protocolized Electrosurgery Dispersive Electrode Positioning in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

2019 ◽  
Vol 130 (4) ◽  
pp. 530-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Schulman ◽  
Miriam M. Treggiari ◽  
N. David Yanez ◽  
Charles A. Henrikson ◽  
Peter M. Jessel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Electromagnetic Interference ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Electrode Positioning ◽  
Monopolar Electrosurgery ◽  
Dispersive Electrode ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillators

Abstract Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background The goal of this study was to determine the occurrence of intraoperative electromagnetic interference from monopolar electrosurgery in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator undergoing surgery. A protocolized approach was used to position the dispersive electrode. Methods This was a prospective cohort study including 144 patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators undergoing surgery between May 2012 and September 2016 at an academic medical center. The primary objectives were to determine the occurrences of electromagnetic interference and clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference (interference that would have resulted in delivery of inappropriate antitachycardia therapy had the antitachycardia therapy not been programmed off) in noncardiac surgeries above the umbilicus, noncardiac surgeries at or below the umbilicus, and cardiac surgeries with the use of an underbody dispersive electrode. Results The risks of electromagnetic interference and clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference were 14 of 70 (20%) and 5 of 70 (7%) in above-the-umbilicus surgery, 1 of 40 (2.5%) and 0 of 40 (0%) in below-the-umbilicus surgery, and 23 of 34 (68%) and 10 of 34 (29%) in cardiac surgery. Had conservative programming strategies intended to reduce the risk of inappropriate antitachycardia therapy been employed, the occurrence of clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference would have been 2 of 70 (2.9%) in above-the-umbilicus surgery and 3 of 34 (8.8%) in cardiac surgery. Conclusions Despite protocolized dispersive electrode positioning, the risks of electromagnetic interference and clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference with surgery above the umbilicus were high, supporting published recommendations to suspend antitachycardia therapy whenever monopolar electrosurgery is used above the umbilicus. For surgery below the umbilicus, these risks were negligible, implying that suspending antitachycardia therapy is likely unnecessary in these patients. For cardiac surgery, the risks of electromagnetic interference and clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference with an underbody dispersive electrode were high. Conservative programming strategies would not have eliminated the risk of clinically meaningful electromagnetic interference in either noncardiac surgery above the umbilicus or cardiac surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document