OBJECTIVES: The electromagnetic field generated by different systems have well-recognized adverse effects on pacemaker functions. The aim of this study is to evaluate the adverse effects of mobile phones on pacemaker functions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 679 patients with permanent pacemakers were enrolled in this study. The study was performed in two steps. Pacemaker lead polarity was unipolar in the first step and bipolar in the second step. Pacemaker sensitivity was first at nominal values, it was then reduced to the minimal value for that pacemaker and tested again. Two mobile phones were symmetrically located on both sides of the pacemaker pocket with the antennas being equidistant at 50, 30, 20 and 10 cm and in close contact with the pocket. The tests were performed when both mobiles were opened, on stand-by, were receiving a call, during the call and were closed. Thirty-seven patients with pacemakers were adversely affected (5.5%) (33 VVI-R pacemakers were converted to asynchronous mode, and 3 were inhibited, 1 DDD-R pacemaker developed ventricular triggering). When the lead polarity was unipolar, the rate of adverse effect was higher when compared to the bipolar state (4.12% and 1.40%, p<0.01). The increase in sensitivity was not an independent factor on the rate of being affected (p>0.05). The rate of observing an adverse effect increased as the pacemaker got older (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Mobile phones might have adverse effects on pacemaker functions under certain conditions. This does not result in any symptoms other than the inhibition of pacemakers, and pacemaker functions return to normal when the mobile phones are removed away from the patient.
OBJECTIVES: The electromagnetic field generated by different systems have well-recognized adverse effects on pacemaker functions. The aim of this study is to evaluate the adverse effects of mobile phones on pacemaker functions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 679 patients with permanent pacemakers were enrolled in this study. The study was performed in two steps. Pacemaker lead polarity was unipolar in the first step and bipolar in the second step. Pacemaker sensitivity was first at nominal values, it was then reduced to the minimal value for that pacemaker and tested again. Two mobile phones were symmetrically located on both sides of the pacemaker pocket with the antennas being equidistant at 50, 30, 20 and 10 cm and in close contact with the pocket. The tests were performed when both mobiles were opened, on stand-by, were receiving a call, during the call and were closed. Thirty-seven patients with pacemakers were adversely affected (5.5%) (33 VVI-R pacemakers were converted to asynchronous mode, and 3 were inhibited, 1 DDD-R pacemaker developed ventricular triggering). When the lead polarity was unipolar, the rate of adverse effect was higher when compared to the bipolar state (4.12% and 1.40%, p<0.01). The increase in sensitivity was not an independent factor on the rate of being affected (p>0.05). The rate of observing an adverse effect increased as the pacemaker got older (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Mobile phones might have adverse effects on pacemaker functions under certain conditions. This does not result in any symptoms other than the inhibition of pacemakers, and pacemaker functions return to normal when the mobile phones are removed away from the patient.
Authors: Maria Tiikkaja; Tommi Alanko; Harri Lindholm; Maila Hietanen; Juha Hartikainen; Lauri Toivonen Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Maria Tiikkaja; Aapo L Aro; Tommi Alanko; Harri Lindholm; Heli Sistonen; Juha E K Hartikainen; Lauri Toivonen; Jukka Juutilainen; Maila Hietanen Journal: Saf Health Work Date: 2013-07-20