Electromagnetic Interference From Wireless Video-Capsule Endoscopy on Implantable Pacemakers

Dubner, Sergio; Dubner, Yael; Zagalsky, David; Spallone, Liliana; Rubio, Horacio W.; Goldin, Eran

doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(05)01019-9

Cited by 3 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Pill‐Cam or video‐capsule has been previously demonstrated to deliver a sufficiently strong signal capable of causing interference with the function of some pacemakers. In a prior study, 10 this was still infrequent (4%) and when it occurred, it was associated with noise‐mode behavior of the pacemaker. Other authors 10–13 have not identified EMI‐induced adverse behaviors in pacemakers, although the number of cases evaluated was very small.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…In a prior study, 10 this was still infrequent (4%) and when it occurred, it was associated with noise‐mode behavior of the pacemaker. Other authors 10–13 have not identified EMI‐induced adverse behaviors in pacemakers, although the number of cases evaluated was very small. We also believe that there were methodologist errors in those other studies and these have been discussed in our prior publications 10,14 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Other authors 10–13 have not identified EMI‐induced adverse behaviors in pacemakers, although the number of cases evaluated was very small. We also believe that there were methodologist errors in those other studies and these have been discussed in our prior publications 10,14 . The situation with ICDs differs from that of pacemakers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This system employs a frequency band of 434.09 MHz. This frequency may interfere with the normal operation of both ICDs and pacemakers 8–10 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Electromagnetic Interference from Wireless Video‐Capsule Endoscopy on Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillators

Dubner¹,

Dubner²,

Rubio³

et al. 2007

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This system employs a frequency band of 434.09 MHz. This frequency may interfere with the normal operation of both ICDs and pacemakers 8–10 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Electromagnetic Interference from Wireless Video‐Capsule Endoscopy on Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillators

Dubner¹,

Dubner²,

Rubio³

et al. 2007

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to our experience, 3 the interference observed was low, and it manifested due to noise mode function forcing asynchronous behavior and functional VOO or DOO pacing. What Guyomar et al, performed during 8 hours with reprogramming the pacemaker was what the capsule could do sporadically as a response to interference.…”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

Letter to the Editor

Dubner¹,

Goldin²,

Dubner³

2005

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article by Guyomar et al. about "Interference between pacemaker and video capsule endoscopy" 1 is very interesting and leads us to make some comments.With regards to the gaps or blank periods during the examination, these may be due to other causes rather than interference, for instance the increase in the recorder's temperature, which as protection, when it reaches a given level, ceases to record momentarily, and according to our experience, this always occurred in the first half of the recording. 2 It is difficult to think that a device (the PM) that generates 70 electrical stimuli per minute may interfere with another (the capsule) that activates 120 times per minute, when the reverse would be easier to understand.Although it is true that there is interference with pacemakers, why the pulse generator was reprogrammed to VOO/70 beats/min before ingestion, if the authors had confirmed earlier the absence of pacing inhibition by the video transmission?According to our experience, 3 the interference observed was low, and it manifested due to noise mode function forcing asynchronous behavior and functional VOO or DOO pacing. What Guyomar et al., performed during 8 hours with reprogramming the pacemaker was what the capsule could do sporadically as a response to interference.It is also reasonable to think that there will be neither modification of the PM settings nor interference while it is in asynchronic mode, such as explained by the authors, so the conclusion results are evident.We believe that monitoring and programming precautions should be taken only with those patients with positive interference with an external test or pacemaker-dependence patients and the failure of the endoscopic recording should be considered to be due to causes different from pacemaker interference.

show abstract