Literature DB >> 23052333

Forces on cardiac implantable electronic devices during remote magnetic navigation.

C Jilek1, C Lennerz, B Stracke, H Badran, V Semmler, T Reents, S Ammar, S Fichtner, B Haller, G Hessling, I Deisenhofer, C Kolb.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Remote magnetic navigation systems are used for catheter navigation in cardiac electrophysiological ablation procedures. In this setting, ferromagnetic particles will be moved by changes in the magnetic field. It is unknown to what extent cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are affected by the magnetic field when using magnetic navigation, and whether these forces may exceed the limit of 5 N that is set forth by German and European norms for implanted electrodes.
METHODS: A total of 121 rhythm devices were examined in a magnetic field of 0.1 T using the NIOBE II(®) Magnetic Navigation System (Stereotaxis, St. Louis, USA). Forces acting on the devices were measured with the force measurement tool Futek LRF 400 (Futek Advanced Sensor Technology Inc., Irvine, CA, USA). A standardized protocol of different movements of the magnetic field including all three dimensions was performed and maximal forces on the CIED were assessed.
RESULTS: Out of 121 devices, 78 different pacemakers (54 different model families from 11 manufacturers) and 43 different cardioverter-defibrillators (26 different model families from 6) were examined. The mean force that could be observed was 0.33 ± 0.13 N for pacemakers (range 0.16-1.12 N) and 1.05 ± 0.11 N for cardioverter-defibrillators (range 0.86-1.38 N) when exposed to the magnetic field.
CONCLUSION: Exposure of pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators to a magnetic field of 0.1 T does not result in a force exceeding the regulatory demanded 5 N that could damage the connected leads.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23052333     DOI: 10.1007/s00392-012-0513-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol        ISSN: 1861-0684            Impact factor:   5.460


  34 in total

1.  Inappropriate shock delivery due to interference between a washing machine and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

Authors:  Christof Kolb; Sebastian Schmieder; Claus Schmitt
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 2.  Electromagnetic interference and implanted cardiac devices: the nonmedical environment (part I).

Authors:  Juna Misiri; Fred Kusumoto; Nora Goldschlager
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2012-04-26       Impact factor: 2.882

Review 3.  Electromagnetic interference and implanted cardiac devices: the medical environment (part II).

Authors:  Juna Misiri; Fred Kusumoto; Nora Goldschlager
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2012-04-26       Impact factor: 2.882

4.  A randomized comparison of the magnetic navigation system versus conventional percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Steve Ramcharitar; Robert Jan van Geuns; Mark Patterson; Willem J van der Giessen; Martin van der Ent; Ron T van Domburg; Patrick W Serruys
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2008-11-15       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  German stereotaxis-guided percutaneous coronary intervention study group: first multicenter real world experience.

Authors:  Korff Krause; Umar Adamu; Michael Weber; Klaus Hertting; Christian Hamm; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Rainer Hoffmann; Malte Kelm; Rüdiger Blindt
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 5.460

6.  Remote magnetic navigation to guide endocardial and epicardial catheter mapping of scar-related ventricular tachycardia.

Authors:  Arash Aryana; Andre d'Avila; E Kevin Heist; Theofanie Mela; Jagmeet P Singh; Jeremy N Ruskin; Vivek Y Reddy
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-02-12       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  Robotic magnetic navigation for atrial fibrillation ablation.

Authors:  Carlo Pappone; Gabriele Vicedomini; Francesco Manguso; Filippo Gugliotta; Patrizio Mazzone; Simone Gulletta; Nicoleta Sora; Simone Sala; Alessandra Marzi; Giuseppe Augello; Laura Livolsi; Andreina Santagostino; Vincenzo Santinelli
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2006-03-15       Impact factor: 24.094

8.  Impact of remote magnetic catheter navigation on ablation fluoroscopy and procedure time.

Authors:  Albert M Kim; Mintu Turakhia; Jonathan Lu; Nitish Badhwar; Byron K Lee; Randall J Lee; Gregory M Marcus; Zian H Tseng; Melvin Scheinman; Jeffrey E Olgin
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.976

9.  Use of the Stereotaxis Niobe magnetic navigation system for percutaneous coronary intervention: results from 350 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Ferdinand Kiemeneij; Mark S Patterson; Giovanni Amoroso; GertJan Laarman; Ton Slagboom
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2008-03-01       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 10.  Safety and efficacy of the remote magnetic navigation for ablation of ventricular tachycardias--a systematic review.

Authors:  Ferdi Akca; Ibrahim Önsesveren; Luc Jordaens; Tamas Szili-Torok
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2011-12-20       Impact factor: 1.900

View more
  3 in total

1.  Remote magnetic navigation for persistent atrial fibrillation ablation via a retrograde aortic access: an approach for patients after atrial septal defect device closure.

Authors:  Alessandra Buiatti; Gabriele Hessling; Verena Semmler; Sonia Ammar
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2014-08-02       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 2.  The Effects of Catheter Ablation on Permanent Pacemakers and Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators.

Authors:  Yousef H Darrat; Gustavo X Morales; Claude S Elayi
Journal:  J Innov Card Rhythm Manag       Date:  2017-03-15

3.  A priori model independent inverse potential mapping: the impact of electrode positioning.

Authors:  A W Maurits van der Graaf; Pranav Bhagirath; Jacques de Hooge; Natasja M S de Groot; Marco J W Götte
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2015-07-28       Impact factor: 5.460

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.