Electromagnetic interference from welding and motors on implantable cardioverter-defibrillators as tested in the electrically hostile work site

被引:32
|
作者
Fetter, JG
Benditt, DG
Stanton, MS
机构
[1] UNIV MINNESOTA,DEPT MED,CARDIAC ARRHYTHMIA CTR,MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55455
[2] MAYO CLIN,ROCHESTER,MN
关键词
D O I
10.1016/0735-1097(96)00147-7
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives. This study was designed to determine the susceptibility of an implanted cardioverter-defibrillator to electromagnetic interference in an electrically hostile work site environment, with the ultimate goal of allowing the patient to return to work. Background. Normal operation of an implanted cardioverter-defibrillator depends on reliable sensing of the heart's electrical activity. Consequently, there is concern that external electromagnetic interference from external sources in the work place, especially welding equipment or motor-generator systems, may be sensed and produce inappropriate shocks or abnormal reed switch operation, temporarily suspending detection of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Methods. The effects of electromagnetic interference on the operation of one type of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (Medtronic models 7217 and 7219) was measured by using internal event counter monitoring in 10 patients operating are welders at up to 900 A or working near 200-hp motors and 1 patient close to a locomotive starter drawing up to 400 A. Results. The electromagnetic interference produced two sources of potential interference on the sensing circuit or reed switch operation, respectively: 1) electrical fields with measured frequen cies up to 50 MHz produced by the high currents during welding electrode activation, and 2) magnetic fields produced by the current in the welding electrode and cable. The defibrillator sensitivity was programmed to the highest (most sensitive) value: 0.15 mV (model 7219) or 0.3 mV (model 7217). The ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation therapies were temporarily turned off but the detection circuits left on. Conclusions. None of the implanted defibrillators tested were affected by oversensing of the electric field as verified by telemetry from the detection circuits. The magnetic field from 225-A welding current produced a flux density of 1.2 G; this density was not adequate to close the reed switch, which requires similar to 10 G. Our testing at the work site revealed no electrical interference with this type of defibrillator. Patients were allowed to return to work, The following precautions should be observed by the patient: 1) maintain a minimal distance of 2 ft (61 cm) from the melding are and cables or large motors, 2) do not exceed tested currents with the welding equipment, 3) wear insulated gloves while operating electrical equipment, 4) verify that electrical equipment is properly grounded, and 5) stop welding and leave the work area immediately if a therapy is delivered or a feeling of lightheadedness is experienced.
引用
收藏
页码:423 / 427
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] In vitro tests reveal sample radiofrequency identification readers inducing clinically significant electromagnetic interference to implantable pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators
    Seidman, Seth J.
    Brockman, Randall
    Lewis, Brian Marc
    Guag, Joshua
    Shein, Mitchell J.
    Clement, Wesley J.
    Kippola, James
    Digby, Dennis
    Barber, Catherine
    Huntwork, Dan
    HEART RHYTHM, 2010, 7 (01) : 99 - 107
  • [32] Interference of programmed electromagnetic stimulation with pacemakers and automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators
    Gwechenberger, Marianne
    Rauscha, Friedrich
    Stix, Guenter
    Schmid, Gernot
    Strametz-Juranek, Jeanette
    BIOELECTROMAGNETICS, 2006, 27 (05) : 365 - 377
  • [33] Electromagnetic Interference of Avalanche Transceivers with Cardiac Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators
    Dorenkamp, Marc
    Blaschke, Florian
    Voigt, Kathleen
    Fleck, Eckart
    Goetze, Stephan
    Roser, Mattias
    PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2013, 36 (08): : 931 - 938
  • [34] Intraoperative Electrosurgical Electromagnetic Interference in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Is It Safe?
    Rooke, G. Alec
    ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2019, 130 (04) : 523 - 525
  • [35] Interference of two common European digital cellular phones with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators - A reply
    Manolis, AS
    Chiladakis, JA
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2002, 23 (07) : 588 - 588
  • [36] Analysis of ventricular tachyarrhythmias onset as retrieved from implantable cardioverter-defibrillators
    Pruvot, E
    Maillard, A
    Thonet, G
    Vesin, JM
    Jung, W
    Seidl, K
    Brachmann, J
    Hoffmann, E
    Tavernier, R
    Block, M
    Schmidinger, H
    Fromer, M
    CIRCULATION, 1999, 100 (18) : 571 - 571
  • [37] Emerging electromagnetic interferences between implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and left ventricular assist devices
    Yalcin, Yunus C.
    Kooij, Claudette
    Theuns, Dominic A. M. J.
    Constantinescu, Alina A.
    Brugts, Jasper J.
    Manintveld, Olivier C.
    Yap, Sing-Chien
    Szili-Torok, Tamas
    Bogers, Ad J. J. C.
    Caliskan, Kadir
    EUROPACE, 2020, 22 (04): : 584 - 587
  • [38] THE 1994 NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE TRIGGERED SHOCKS FROM IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER-DEFIBRILLATORS
    NISHIMOTO, Y
    FIRTH, BR
    KLONER, RA
    LEOR, J
    LERMAN, RD
    BHANDARI, AK
    CANNOM, DS
    CIRCULATION, 1995, 92 (08) : 2899 - 2899
  • [39] Low risk of electromagnetic interference between smartphones and contemporary implantable cardioverter defibrillators
    Burri, Haran
    Engkolo, Louis Paulin Mondouagne
    Dayal, Nicolas
    Etemadi, Abdul
    Makhlouf, Anne-Marie
    Stettler, Carine
    Trentaz, Florence
    EUROPACE, 2016, 18 (05): : 726 - 731
  • [40] Induction ovens and electromagnetic interference: What is the risk for patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators?
    Binggeli, C
    Rickli, H
    Ammann, P
    Brunckhorst, C
    Hufschmid, U
    Luechinger, R
    Duru, F
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2005, 16 (04) : 399 - 401