Effect of ElectroMagnetic interference from SmartPHone on cardiac ImplaNtable electronic device (EMI-PHONE study).

Sanatcha Apakuppakul, Nilubon Methachittiphan, Sirin Apiyasawat
Author Information
  1. Sanatcha Apakuppakul: Ramathibodi hospital Mahidol University Bangkok Thailand. ORCID
  2. Nilubon Methachittiphan: Ramathibodi hospital Mahidol University Bangkok Thailand.
  3. Sirin Apiyasawat: Ramathibodi hospital Mahidol University Bangkok Thailand. ORCID

Abstract

Background: Smartphone can emit two types of electromagnetic waves, static field and dynamic field. Evidence showed the interference from phones to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The smartphones and CIEDs are reportedly better designed to reduce electromagnetic interference (EMI).
Methods: 80 consecutive subjects with CIEDs were recruited and tested for EMI. Subject was tested with three different smartphones (Nokia 3310, Iphone 7, and Samsung 9S). Phone was attached to chest wall at 0 cm at generator site, at atrial lead level, and at ventricular lead level. During the tests, real-time interrogations were performed to detect any EMI from smartphone in standby mode, and during calling-in and out for 30 s. After the tests, post-test interrogations were performed to detect any parameter change. Adverse events including pacemaker inhibition, false ICD shock, CIEDs device malfunction, and urgent electrophysiologist consultations were recorded.
Results: 80 subjects (mean age 70.5-year-old, 50% male) recruited in the study, all completed the testing protocol. The most common type of CIEDs tested was pacemaker ( = 56, 70%), followed by ICD ( = 16, 20%), and CRT ( = 8, 10%). Most patients ( = 62, 77.5%) had more than one lead implanted. The mean year of implantation was 5.2��2.8 (devices were implanted from 2008 to 2019). Of all the tests performed, there was no EMI or adverse events observed.
Conclusion: Current generation of smartphones has no EMI effect on CIEDs in our study and can be used safely with less concern about adverse events including pacemaker inhibition, inappropriate ICD shock, and CIEDs device malfunction.

Keywords

References

  1. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1996 Oct;19(10):1431-46 [PMID: 8904533]
  2. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Jan 3;69(1):108-110 [PMID: 28057236]
  3. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2007;43(3):268-76 [PMID: 17938458]
  4. Europace. 2016 May;18(5):726-31 [PMID: 26857191]
  5. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2007;43(3):254-9 [PMID: 17938456]
  6. J Arrhythm. 2022 Jul 12;38(5):778-782 [PMID: 36237870]
  7. Eur Heart J. 2001 Aug;22(15):1337-42 [PMID: 11465966]
  8. Health Phys. 2014 Oct;107(4):318-25 [PMID: 25162422]
  9. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2006 Oct 01;6(4):226-33 [PMID: 17031411]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0CIEDsEMIinterferencecardiacpacemakerdeviceelectromagneticimplantableelectronicsmartphonestestedleadtestsperformedeventsICDstudycanfielddevices80subjectsrecruitedlevelinterrogationsdetectsmartphoneincludinginhibitionshockmalfunctionmeanimplantedadverseBackground:SmartphoneemittwotypeswavesstaticdynamicEvidenceshowedphonesreportedlybetterdesignedreduceMethods:consecutiveSubjectthreedifferentNokia3310Iphone7Samsung9SPhoneattachedchestwall0 cmgeneratorsiteatrialventricularreal-timestandbymodecalling-in30 spost-testparameterchangeAdversefalseurgentelectrophysiologistconsultationsrecordedResults:age705-year-old50%malecompletedtestingprotocolcommontype = 5670%followed = 1620%CRT = 810%patients = 62775%oneyearimplantation52��2820082019observedConclusion:CurrentgenerationeffectusedsafelylessconcerninappropriateEffectElectroMagneticSmartPHoneImplaNtableEMI-PHONEresynchronizationtherapycardioverterdefibrillator

Similar Articles

Cited By