Key result
A methodology for risk assessment of employees with cardiac active implantable medical devices exposed to electromagnetic fields was described and applied to three case studies.
Why the study?
Workers with cardiac active implantable medical devices are considered a sensitive risk group that must be protected against electromagnetic field interference under occupational safety regulations.
The paper provides a practical framework and case studies for assessing the risk of electromagnetic field interference in workers with cardiac implantable electronic devices according to European regulations.
Offers a framework for EMF risk assessment in workers with cardiac AIMDs; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Workers with cardiac active implantable medical devices (AIMD), such as a pacemaker (PM) or an implantable defibrillator (ICD), are considered by the occupational health and safety regulation framework as a particularly sensitive risk group that must be protected against the dangers caused by the interference of electromagnetic field (EMF). In this paper, we first describe the general methodology that shall be followed for the risk assessment of employees with a cardiac AIMD exposed to EMF, according to the EU regulation, and in particular to the EN 50527-2-1:2016 and 50527-2-2:2018 standards. Then, three case studies related to specific EMF sources are presented, to better describe how the initial analysis of the risk assessment can be performed in practice, and to understand if a further specific risk assessment analysis is required or not.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mattei et al. (2021) conducted a review in Workers with cardiac active implantable medical devices (AIMD) exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMF). Electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure was evaluated. A methodology for risk assessment of employees with cardiac active implantable medical devices exposed to electromagnetic fields was described and applied to three case studies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: