Ayelet Rishpon1,2, Ralph Braun3, Martin A Weinstock4,5, Stephen Kulju6, Andrea Grenga4, Cristian Navarrete-Dechent1,7, Nadeem G Marghoob8, Jan Steffel9, Ashfaq A Marghoob10. 1. Dermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 2. Department of Dermatology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Department of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Center for Dermatoepidemiology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island. 5. Department of Dermatology, the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 6. National Center for Patient Safety, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 7. Department of Dermatology, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 8. New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine, OMSIII, Old Westbury, New York, New York. 9. Department of Cardiology, University Heart Center Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 10. Dermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Hauppauge, New York.
Abstract
Importance: Cardiovascular implanted electronic devices (CIEDs) are susceptible to electromagnetic interference. Dermatologists regularly use devices containing magnets, including dermatoscopes and their attachments, which could pose a hazard to patients with CIEDs. Objective: To investigate the safety risk of magnets in dermatoscopes to patients with CIEDs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional observational study was conducted between January 1, 2018, and March 31, 2018, in a controlled laboratory setting. Two experiments were performed. In the first experiment (performed in the Dermatology Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York), dermatoscopes that contain magnets were obtained from 3 manufacturers. Using a magnometer, the magnetic field strength of the dermatoscopes was measured over the magnet; at the faceplate; and at a distance of 0.5 cm, 1 cm and 15 cm away from the faceplate. In the second experiment (performed in the University Heart Center Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland), ex vivo measurements were conducted to determine how the dermatoscopes affected old-generation and new generation CIEDs (pacemakers and implantable defibrillators). Main Outcomes and Measures: Magnetic field strength as measured directly over the dermatoscope magnet; at the faceplate; and at distances of 0.5 cm, 1 cm, and 15 cm from the faceplate. Pacemaker and defibrillator operation when exposed to dermatoscopes. Results: After conducting 24 measurements, the magnetic field (measured in gauss [G]) strength varied between 24.26 G and 163.04 G over the dermatoscope magnet, between 2.22 G and 9.98 G at the dermatoscope faceplate, between 0.82 G and 2.4 G at a distance of 0.5 cm, and between 0.5 G and 1.04 G at a distance of 1 cm; it was 0 for all devices at a 15 cm distance. The field strength at the faceplate was found to be generally below the CIED industry standard safety threshold. None of the dermatoscopes in the ex vivo experiment exerted any demonstrable disruptions or changes to the CIEDs. Conclusions and Relevance: In real life, dermatoscope magnets likely present no measurable safety risk to patients with CIEDs. Using the polarized noncontact mode permits dermoscopy to be performed at least 0.5 cm from the skin surface, where the magnetic field strength was well below the 5-G safety threshold.
Importance: Cardiovascular implanted electronic devices (CIEDs) are susceptible to electromagnetic interference. Dermatologists regularly use devices containing magnets, including dermatoscopes and their attachments, which could pose a hazard to patients with CIEDs. Objective: To investigate the safety risk of magnets in dermatoscopes to patients with CIEDs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional observational study was conducted between January 1, 2018, and March 31, 2018, in a controlled laboratory setting. Two experiments were performed. In the first experiment (performed in the Dermatology Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York), dermatoscopes that contain magnets were obtained from 3 manufacturers. Using a magnometer, the magnetic field strength of the dermatoscopes was measured over the magnet; at the faceplate; and at a distance of 0.5 cm, 1 cm and 15 cm away from the faceplate. In the second experiment (performed in the University Heart Center Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland), ex vivo measurements were conducted to determine how the dermatoscopes affected old-generation and new generation CIEDs (pacemakers and implantable defibrillators). Main Outcomes and Measures: Magnetic field strength as measured directly over the dermatoscope magnet; at the faceplate; and at distances of 0.5 cm, 1 cm, and 15 cm from the faceplate. Pacemaker and defibrillator operation when exposed to dermatoscopes. Results: After conducting 24 measurements, the magnetic field (measured in gauss [G]) strength varied between 24.26 G and 163.04 G over the dermatoscope magnet, between 2.22 G and 9.98 G at the dermatoscope faceplate, between 0.82 G and 2.4 G at a distance of 0.5 cm, and between 0.5 G and 1.04 G at a distance of 1 cm; it was 0 for all devices at a 15 cm distance. The field strength at the faceplate was found to be generally below the CIED industry standard safety threshold. None of the dermatoscopes in the ex vivo experiment exerted any demonstrable disruptions or changes to the CIEDs. Conclusions and Relevance: In real life, dermatoscope magnets likely present no measurable safety risk to patients with CIEDs. Using the polarized noncontact mode permits dermoscopy to be performed at least 0.5 cm from the skin surface, where the magnetic field strength was well below the 5-G safety threshold.
Authors: Jennifer Strahle; Béla J Selzer; Karin M Muraszko; Hugh J L Garton; Cormac O Maher Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Steven M Kurtz; Jorge A Ochoa; Edmund Lau; Yakov Shkolnikov; Behzad B Pavri; Daniel Frisch; Arnold J Greenspon Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Teri M Kozik; Gianna Chien; Therese F Connolly; Gurinder S Grewal; David Liang; Walter Chien Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2014-04-10 Impact factor: 5.501