Key result
Chest physiotherapy using a mechanical lung vibrator or high-frequency chest wall oscillation caused no electromagnetic interference or clinically significant lead integrity changes in 46 patients with CIEDs, though HFCWO inappropriately accelerated pacing rates in 7 patients with rate-responsive devices.
Why the study?
Concerns exist regarding potential electromagnetic interference and lead integrity issues when vibrating chest physiotherapy devices are used in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.
Do mechanical lung vibrator and high-frequency chest wall oscillation vests cause electromagnetic interference or lead integrity problems in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Do mechanical lung vibrator and high-frequency chest wall oscillation vests cause electromagnetic interference or lead integrity problems in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Mechanical lung vibrators and HFCWO vests can be safely used in patients with CIEDs without causing EMI or lead damage, provided accelerometer-based activity sensors are deactivated to prevent inappropriate pacing rate acceleration.
Supports safe chest physiotherapy in CIED patients without EMI; hypothesis-generating pending randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: Chest physiotherapy (CPT) is a non-pharmacological therapy to facilitate airway secretion removal. There have been concerns about potential electromagnetic interference (EMI) and lead integrity problems during the use of vibrating CPT devices in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). HYPOTHESIS: Two CPT devices can be used safely in patients with CIED. METHODS: Volunteer patients with CIED underwent device interrogation to check lead integrity and device function before and after application of CPT devices. Mechanical lung vibrator and high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO) vests were used while monitoring surface electrocardiograms and intra-cardiac electrograms. RESULTS: We prospectively enrolled 46 patients with CIEDs (25 pacemakers, 15 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and six cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators). There was no noise detection or EMI during CPT in any patient. None of the patients showed clinically significant changes in lead integrity parameters. HFCWO inappropriately accelerated the pacing rate up to the maximal programmed value in five patients with pacemakers and two with cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators. CONCLUSION: CPT may be safely applied to patients with CIED without compromising lead integrity or device function, except for unwanted increase in pacing rate caused by misdetection of chest wall vibration as patients' activity while using HFCWO. Deactivation of the accelerometer-based activity sensor may be needed when HFCWO is planned for CPT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gwag et al. (2021) studied Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) (n=46). Mechanical lung vibrator and high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO) was evaluated on Electromagnetic interference (EMI), noise detection, and lead integrity changes. Chest physiotherapy using a mechanical lung vibrator or high-frequency chest wall oscillation caused no electromagnetic interference or clinically significant lead integrity changes in 46 patients with CIEDs, though HFCWO inappropriately accelerated pacing rates in 7 patients with rate-responsive devices.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: