Key result
In-body coupling between cardiac implants decreases linearly by ~3.6 dB/cm in preclinical models.
Why the study?
In-body and off-body channel models at 2.4 GHz are needed to develop multinode leadless capsule pacemaker technology.
This preclinical study establishes in-body and off-body channel models at 2.4 GHz, providing foundational technical parameters for the development of future multinode leadless cardiac pacemakers.
May guide cardiac implant antenna design; leaves open human translation of 2.4 GHz in-body networks.
In this letter, the in-body and off-body channel models at the frequency of 2.4 GHz are studied for development of multinode leadless capsule pacemaker technology based on experiments in homogeneous liquid phantom model of human heart and living animal experiments. For conducting the experiments, we design a battery-operated self-contained transmitter capsule consisting of a small antenna and transmitter printed-circuit board, subcutaneous implant and the off-body antennas. The in-body path-loss model obtained from the phantom experiment is a linear function of distance, whereas the off-body path-loss model between the implant and the off-body antenna is a logarithmic function of distance comparable to the free-space path-loss model. The phantom experiment study shows that coupling between implants decreases linearly at the rate of 3.6 dB/cm for cardiac implants and by 4.1 dB/cm for cardiac to subcutaneous implant at 2.4 GHz. The animal experiment results are in good accordance with the phantom results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bose et al. (2018) studied Development of multinode leadless capsule pacemaker technology. In-body and off-body channel models at 2.4 GHz was evaluated on Path-loss model and coupling between implants. In-body path-loss coupling between cardiac implants decreased linearly at a rate of 3.6 dB/cm, and by 4.1 dB/cm for cardiac to subcutaneous implants at 2.4 GHz in phantom and animal experiments.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: