This comparative analysis evaluates rf heating predictions in aimds using two electromagnetic solvers, pointing to implications for regulatory compliance.
Motivation: Accurate RF heating prediction is crucial for patient safety and regulatory compliance. Goal(s): Provide an unbiased evaluation of ANSYS HFSS and Sim4Life in predicting RF-induced heating of AIMDs. Approach: Simulation setups of a commercial coil were optimized in both platforms. The transfer function (TF) of a DBS lead was validated experimentally and used to predict in-vivo RF heating in clinically relevant lead trajectories in body models. Results: Both solvers demonstrated high accuracy in RF heating predictions, with no significant difference in mean temperature rise. ANSYS HFSS achieved faster simulation times (4.72 vs. 15.40 hours), suggesting greater computational efficiency. Impact: This study offers valuable insights into selecting a suitable electromagnetic solver for RF-safety evaluations of AIMDs, supporting regulatory compliance and clinical decision-making by comparing computational accuracy and efficiency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hameed et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: