Advertisement






Click here for more guidelines.
CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 1998; 31:623-628
© 1998 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fetter, J.
Right arrow Articles by Collins, J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fetter, J.
Right arrow Articles by Collins, J

Digital cellular telephone interaction with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

JG Fetter, V Ivans, DG Benditt, and J Collins

Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432, USA.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine, in vivo, whether electromagnetic interference (EMI), generated by North American Digital Communications (NADC)/Time Division Multiple Access-50-Hz (TDMA-50) mobile cellular digital telephone model AT&T 6650, disturbs normal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) operation and to verify these observations in vitro by testing a selection of telephones representing worldwide systems. METHODS: The effects of cellular phone interference on the operation of various models of market-released ICDs from a single manufacturer, Medtronic, Inc., were tested. The in vivo clinical test was undertaken in 41 patients using the AT&T 6650 digital telephone with the NADC/TDMA-50 technology. The in vitro component of the study was examined twofold: 1) antenna generated far field; and 2) analog/digital cellular telephone near field. RESULTS: None of the ICDs tested in 41 patients were affected by oversensing of the EMI field of the cellular telephones during the in vivo study. Therefore, the binomial upper 95% confidence limit for the failure rate of 0% is 7%. The in vitro antenna-generated field testing showed that telephone modulation frequencies used in the international Global System Mobile and TDMA-50 cellular telephone technologies did not result in ICD sensing interference at the predicted electric field intensity. The in vitro near field tests were performed using both analog and digital cellular telephones in service, or in the test mode, and indicated no interaction with normal operation. However, the static magnetic field generated by the cellular telephone placed over the ICD at a distance < or = 0.5 cm will activate the internal reed switch, resulting in temporary suspension of ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation detection. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that TDMA-50 cellular telephones did not interfere with these types of ICDs. However, we recommend that the patient not carry or place the digital cellular telephone within 15 cm (6 in.) of the ICD.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Mayo Clin Proc.Home page
J. L. Tri, J. M. Trusty, and D. L. Hayes
Potential for Personal Digital Assistant Interference With Implantable Cardiac Devices
Mayo Clin. Proc., December 1, 2004; 79(12): 1527 - 1530.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
C. Kolb, S. Schmieder, G.u. Lehmann, B. Zrenner, M. R. Karch, A. Plewan, and C. Schmitt
Do airport metal detectors interfere with implantable pacemakers or cardioverter-defibrillators?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 4, 2003; 41(11): 2054 - 2059.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur Heart JHome page
M. Niehaus, R. Gille, R. Cierpka, T. Korte, and J. Tebbenjohans
Interference of two common European digital cellular phones with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators
Eur. Heart J., April 1, 2002; 23(7): 586 - 588.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
HeartHome page
M. NIEHAUS and J. TEBBENJOHANNS
Electromagnetic interference in patients with implanted pacemakers or cardioverter-defibrillators
Heart, September 1, 2001; 86(3): 246 - 248.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur Heart JHome page
M. Santini
Digital cellular telephones and ICDs
Eur. Heart J., August 1, 2001; 22(15): 1251 - 1252.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Eur Heart JHome page
J.A Chiladakis, P Davlouros, G Agelopoulos, and A.S Manolis
In-vivo testing of digital cellular telephones in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators
Eur. Heart J., August 1, 2001; 22(15): 1337 - 1342.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
ChestHome page
M. H. Gollob and J. J. Seger
Current Status of the Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator
Chest, April 1, 2001; 119(4): 1210 - 1221.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch Intern MedHome page
N. Goldschlager, A. Epstein, P. Friedman, E. Gang, R. Krol, B. Olshansky, and for the North American Society of Pacing and Elect
Environmental and Drug Effects on Patients With Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter/Defibrillators: A Practical Guide to Patient Treatment
Arch Intern Med, March 12, 2001; 161(5): 649 - 655.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
SEMIN CARDIOTHORAC VASC ANESTHHome page
K. Glatter and L. B. Liem
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: Current Progress and Management
Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, September 1, 2000; 4(3): 162 - 179.
[Abstract] [PDF]



 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement