Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2020
Safety of electronic massagers in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chia Pow-Li, Mok Kwang-How, Wong Shiun Woei, Foo David
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Current recommendations by cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) manufacturers on electromagnetic interference (EMI) are based on extrapolations of studies exposing CIEDs to electromagnetic fields produced by Helmholtz coils and industrial equipment. There are currently little data whether commercially available electronic massagers can cause EMI in CIEDs in vivo. This is of interest as the use of electronic massagers is common in Asia.
METHODS: The study evaluated CIED patients before, during and after a 10-minute exposure to a commercially available electronic backrest upper body massager. Post-exposure sensing, pacing threshold, and lead impedance were compared to baseline values. The presence of artefacts, EMI, and adverse clinical events during exposure was recorded.
RESULTS: Eighty-six patients (59 pacemakers and 27 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators) with a total of 151 leads (60 atrial, 86 right ventricular, and 5 left ventricular) were evaluated. There was no incidence of EMI causing inappropriate inhibition of pacing or inappropriate defibrillation. There was no significant difference in the pacing threshold, sensing, and lead impedance post-exposure compared to baseline values.
CONCLUSION: Our study, though limited by small numbers and exposure to only 1 type of electronic massager, shows that it is potentially safe for patients with CIEDs to use commercially available electronic massagers with similar characteristics as the one tested in this study.
METHODS: The study evaluated CIED patients before, during and after a 10-minute exposure to a commercially available electronic backrest upper body massager. Post-exposure sensing, pacing threshold, and lead impedance were compared to baseline values. The presence of artefacts, EMI, and adverse clinical events during exposure was recorded.
RESULTS: Eighty-six patients (59 pacemakers and 27 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators) with a total of 151 leads (60 atrial, 86 right ventricular, and 5 left ventricular) were evaluated. There was no incidence of EMI causing inappropriate inhibition of pacing or inappropriate defibrillation. There was no significant difference in the pacing threshold, sensing, and lead impedance post-exposure compared to baseline values.
CONCLUSION: Our study, though limited by small numbers and exposure to only 1 type of electronic massager, shows that it is potentially safe for patients with CIEDs to use commercially available electronic massagers with similar characteristics as the one tested in this study.