Literature DB >> 31617041

Incidence of magnet mode in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Gesa von Olshausen1, Johanna Schorr2, Christian Grebmer3, Severin Weigand3, Patrick Blažek3, Amir Brkic3, Lena Friedrich3, Verena Semmler3, Christof Kolb3, Carsten Lennerz3,4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the current incidence of antitachycardia therapy suspension due to magnet reversion in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).
METHODS: From March 2012 to September 2018, all St. Jude Medical ICD interrogations performed at the Deutsches Herzzentrum München were screened for stored events of antitachycardia therapy suspension caused by static magnetic fields (flux densities ≥ 1 mT as defined in St. Jude Medical ICDs) affecting the giant magnetoresistance (GMR) sensor. Intentional ICD deactivation or inappropriate magnet application in the hospital was classified as non-environmental electromagnetic interference (EMI) whereas in the case of any other stored magnet reversion, the event was classified as presumably environmental EMI.
RESULTS: Data from 201 St. Jude Medical ICD patients (mean age 62 ± 24 years, 165 males/36 females) were included in the analysis. ICD interrogations occurred at a mean follow-up of 25.1 months ± 15.6 months and summed up to a total of 464 patient-years of follow-up. A total number of 43 magnet reversion events were detected in 21 patients. Thirty-two events in 13 patients were presumably related to environmental EMI sources. Suspension of antitachycardia therapy only occurred in a temporary fashion. None of the patients experienced any ventricular tachyarrhythmia during ICD inhibition. The incidence of antitachycardia therapy suspension due to magnet reversion related to presumably environmental EMI sources was 6.9% per patient and year.
CONCLUSION: Although none of the patients experienced any harmful event, antitachycardia therapy suspension due to magnet reversion is a common issue. Patients should be well-educated about potential EMI sources as well as trained in handling them.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Electromagnetic interference; Giant magnetoresistance sensor; Implantable cardioverter defibrillators; Inhibition of antitachycardia therapy; Magnet reversion; Static magnetic field

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31617041     DOI: 10.1007/s10840-019-00637-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1383-875X            Impact factor:   1.900


  15 in total

1.  Randomized comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest : the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH).

Authors:  K H Kuck; R Cappato; J Siebels; R Rüppel
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2000-08-15       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 2.  Interference in implanted cardiac devices, Part I.

Authors:  Sergio L Pinski; Richard G Trohman
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 1.976

3.  Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction.

Authors:  Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-03-19       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Potential interference of small neodymium magnets with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Authors:  Thomas Wolber; Salome Ryf; Christian Binggeli; Johannes Holzmeister; Corinna Brunckhorst; Roger Luechinger; Firat Duru
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2006-09-16       Impact factor: 6.343

5.  Incidence of electromagnetic interference in implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Authors:  C Kolb; B Zrenner; C Schmitt
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 1.976

6.  Clinically significant magnetic interference of implanted cardiac devices by portable headphones.

Authors:  Sinjin Lee; Kevin Fu; Tadayoshi Kohno; Benjamin Ransford; William H Maisel
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2009-07-08       Impact factor: 6.343

7.  Effects of external electrical and magnetic fields on pacemakers and defibrillators: from engineering principles to clinical practice.

Authors:  Roy Beinart; Saman Nazarian
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2013-12-24       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  Incidence of antitachycardia therapy suspension due to magnet reversion in implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Authors:  Christof Kolb; Isabel Deisenhofer; Sonja Weyerbrock; Sebastian Schmieder; Andreas Plewan; Bernhard Zrenner; Claus Schmitt
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 1.976

9.  Prophylactic defibrillator implantation in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Alan Kadish; Alan Dyer; James P Daubert; Rebecca Quigg; N A Mark Estes; Kelley P Anderson; Hugh Calkins; David Hoch; Jeffrey Goldberger; Alaa Shalaby; William E Sanders; Andi Schaechter; Joseph H Levine
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-05-20       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Five year trends (2008-2012) in cardiac implantable electrical device utilization in five European nations: a case study in cross-country comparisons using administrative databases.

Authors:  Helen Banks; Aleksandra Torbica; Cinzia Valzania; Yauheniya Varabyova; Valentina Prevolnik Rupel; Rod S Taylor; Theresa Hunger; Simon Walker; Giuseppe Boriani; Giovanni Fattore
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 5.214

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Interference by Modern Smartphones and Accessories with Cardiac Pacemakers and Defibrillators.

Authors:  Fahd Nadeem; Cao Thach Tran; Estelle Torbey; Daniel Philbin; Carlos Morales; Michael Wu
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 2.931

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.