Interactions between Pacemakers and Security Systems

Electromagnetic fields arising from a variety of different sources have been shown to interfere with normal pacemaker function. This study evaluated the possible interactions between two modern security systems and different pacemaker types. Fifty–three patients (27 single chamber pacemakers, 25 dual chamber pacemakers) have been tested routinely for their pacemaker function. Thirty–eight patients presented with unipolar sensing and 15 with bipolar sensing. The patients were asked to walk through an installed security system, an antitheft device, and electromagnetic access device with different field strengths while a six–channel ECG monitored the patients. The pacemaker systems were first measured in their basic programmed modes, then the intervention frequency was changed to 100/min and, thereafter, the maximum sensitivity without T wave over– sensing was added. In the security system with the highest field strength (2,700 mA/m), a pacemaker malfunction could be observed in 13% of the monitored patients. In one case, a pacemaker (VVIR) switched to ventricular safety pacing (VOO mode). In the security system with the lower field strength (1,600 mA/m) we found a pacemaker malfunction in 4% of the tested patients. In the antitheft device (50 mA/m). in the electromagnetic access device (300 mA/m), and in pacemaker systems with bipolar sensing, none of these dysfunctions were observed. Phantom programming as described previously did not occur in any of the systems. Persons who are often in the vicinity of security systems should be equipped with a bipolar pacemaker system. Our findings indicate that patients with pacemakers should avoid contact with security systems.

[1]  A. Camm,et al.  The Response of Implanted Dual Chamber Pacemakers to 50 Hz Extraneous Electrical Interference , 1993, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[2]  D. Sager Current facts on pacemaker electromagnetic interference and their application to clinical care. , 1987, Heart & lung : the journal of critical care.

[3]  N P Smyth,et al.  The pacemaker patient and the electromagnetic environment. , 1974, JAMA.

[4]  D L Hayes,et al.  Testing of Work Environments for Electromagnetic Interference , 1992, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[5]  W Irnich,et al.  Interference in Pacemakers , 1984, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[6]  S. Laniado,et al.  The Effect of Metal Detector Gates on Implanted Permanent Pacemakers , 1988, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[7]  A. Camm,et al.  The Effect of 50 Hz External Electrical Interference on Implanted Cardiac Pacemakers , 1988, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[8]  E. H. Lucas,et al.  The Effects of Electronic Article Surveillance Systems on Permanent Cardiac Pacemakers: An In Vitro Study , 1994, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[9]  J Warren,et al.  Resetting of DDD Pacemakers Due to EMI , 1984, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[10]  W. Irnich,et al.  Electromagnetic Interference of Pacemakers by Mobile Phones , 1996, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[11]  BERNARD DODINOT,et al.  Electronic Article Surveillance: A Possible Danger for Pacemaker Patients , 1993, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[12]  Sager Dp,et al.  Current facts on pacemaker electromagnetic interference and their application to clinical care. , 1987 .

[13]  L Toivonen,et al.  The Influence of Elevated 50 Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields on Implanted Cardiac Pacemakers: The Role of the Lead Configuration and Programming of the Sensitivity , 1991, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.