Why the study?
Does exposure to domestic electrical equipment and diathermy cause interference in patients with implanted non-competitive pacemakers?
Does exposure to domestic electrical equipment and diathermy cause interference in patients with implanted non-competitive pacemakers?
Certain non-competitive pacemakers are susceptible to significant electrical interference from diathermy and domestic equipment, highlighting the need for improved pacemaker shielding and design.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Highlights interference risks in specific older pacemakers during diathermy or near domestic devices; leaves open whether modern shielding resolves these vulnerabilities.
Patients with 41 implanted non-competitive pacemakers were investigated. A variety of domestic electrical equipment, a motor-car, and a physiotherapy diathermy apparatus were each operated in turn at various ranges from the patient. Interference effects on pacemaker function were assessed on the electrocardiograph. Medtronic demand 5841 pacemakers were stopped by diathermy while Cordis Ectocor pacemakers developed a fast discharge rate. Cordis triggered pacemakers (both Atricor and Ectocor) were sensitive to interference from many items of domestic equipment and the motor car. The Elema EM153 ran at an increased rate when an electric razor was running close to the pacemaker. The Devices demand 2980 and the Medtronic demand 5841 were not affected by the domestic equipment tested. The significance of interference effects is discussed in relation to pacemaker design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sowton et al. (1970) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: