Electromagnetic interference in implantable cardioverter defibrillators: present but rare

Inactivation of spinal cord stimulator implanted pulse generators after elective surgery: an under-recognized problem

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively analyzed a database of implanted pulse generators (IPGs) for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) implanted by a single surgeon (NDT). We additionally report a series of five illustrative patient cases.

OBJECTIVES

The electronics of SCS IPGs are susceptible to damage when implanted patients undergo surgery. Some SCSs have a dedicated surgery mode, while others recommend turning the SCS off to protect it from damage. IPG inactivation may require resetting or replacement surgery. We aimed to explore the prevalence of this real-world problem which has not been studied.

SETTING

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

METHODS

Using a single surgeon SCS database, we identified cases of IPG inactivation after a non-SCS surgery and analyzed the management. We then reviewed the charts of five illustrative cases.

RESULTS

Among 490 SCS IPG implantations between 2016-2022, 15 (3%) of the 490 patients' IPGs became inactivated after another non-SCS surgery. 12 (80%) required surgical IPG replacement, while 3 (20%) were able to have their IPG function restored non-operatively. In cases analyzed thus far, surgery mode was often not activated prior to surgery.

CONCLUSION

SCS IPG inactivation by surgery is not a rare problem and is presumably engendered by monopolar electrocautery. Premature IPG replacement surgery carries risks and reduces the cost-effectiveness of SCS. Awareness of this problem may prompt more preventative measures to be taken by surgeons, patients, and caretakers, and encourage technological advances to render IPGs less vulnerable to surgical tools. Further research is needed to determine what quality improvement measures could prevent electrical damage to IPGs.

[Electromagnetic interference : Pacemakers, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator]

Patients with cardiac pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices (CRT) are exposed to different types of electromagnetic interference (EMI) at home and at work. Due to the constantly increasing role of electrically active appliances in daily use and the introduction of new therapy concepts such as the leadless cardiac pacemaker and the subcutaneous defibrillator, this topic is of great relevance. The further development of the implanted devices and the almost complete use of bipolar leads has reduced the overall risk of EMI. This review article provides information about the current status of possible interference in the private environment and how to avoid it. In addition, information is provided on how to deal with occupational sources of interference.

Perioperative Management of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Utility of Magnet Application

With the demographic evolution of the population, patients undergoing surgery today are older and have an increasing number of sometimes complex comorbidities. Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are also getting more and more complex with very sophisticated programming algorithms. It may be generally assumed that magnet application reverts pacing to an asynchronous mode in pacemakers and disables tachycardia detection/therapy in internal cardioverter-defibrillators. However, depending on device type, manufacturer and model, the response to magnet application may differ substantially. For these reasons, perioperative management of CIED patients is getting more and more challenging. With this review article we provide an overview of optimal perioperative management of CIED patients with a detailed description of CIED response to magnet application depending on manufacturer and device-type, which may help in providing a safe perioperative management plan for the CIED patient.

Perioperative Sensor and Algorithm Programming in Patients with Implanted ICDs and Pacemakers for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background: ICDs and pacemakers for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are complex devices with different sensors and automatic algorithms implanted in patients with advanced cardiac diseases. Data on the perioperative management and outcome of CRT carriers undergoing surgery unrelated to the device are scarce. Methods: Data from 198 CRT device carriers (100 with active rate responsive sensor) were evaluated regarding perioperative adverse (device-related) events (A(D)E) and lead parameter changes. Results: Thirty-nine adverse observations were documented in 180 patients during preoperative interrogation, which were most often related to the left-ventricular lead and requiring intervention/reprogramming in 22 cases (12%). Anesthesia-related events occurred in 69 patients. There was no ADE for non-cardiac surgery and in pacemaker-dependent patients not programmed to an asynchronous pacing mode. Post-operative device interrogation showed significant lead parameter changes in 64/179 patients (36%) requiring reprogramming in 29 cases (16%). Conclusion: The left-ventricular pacing lead represents the most vulnerable system component. Comprehensive pre and post-interventional device interrogation is mandatory to ensure proper system function. The type of ICD function suspension has no impact on each patient’s outcome. Precautionary activity sensor deactivation is not required for non-cardiac interventions. Routine prophylactic device reprogramming to asynchronous pacing appears inessential. Most of the CRT pacemakers do not require surgery-related reprogramming.

Electromagnetic interference from left ventricular assist devices detected in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

INTRODUCTION

Electromagnetic interference (EMI) from left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) can cause implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) oversensing. We sought to assess the frequency of inappropriate shocks/oversensing due to LVAD-related EMI and prospectively compare integrated (IB) versus dedicated bipolar (DB) sensing in patients with LVADs.

METHODS

Single-center study in LVAD patients with Medtronic or Abbott ICDs between September 2017 and March 2020. We excluded patients that were pacemaker dependent. Measurements were obtained of IB and DB sensing and noise to calculate a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Device checks were reviewed to assess appropriate and inappropriate sensing events.

RESULTS

Forty patients (age 52 ± 14 years, 75% men, 38% ischemic cardiomyopathy) were included with the median time between LVAD implantation and enrollment of 6.7 months (2.3, 11.4 months). LVAD subtypes included: HeartWare (n = 22, 55%), Heartmate II (n = 10, 25%), and Heartmate III (n = 8, 20%). Over a follow-up duration of 21.6 ± 12.9 months after LVAD implantation, 5% of patients (n = 2) had oversensing of EMI from the LVAD (both with HeartWare LVADs and Abbott ICDs) at 4 days and 10.8 months after LVAD implantation. Both patients underwent adjustment of ventricular sensing with resolution of oversensing and no further events over 5 and 15 months of further follow-up. The SNR was similar between IB and DB sensing (50 [29-67] and 57 [41-69], p = 0.89).

CONCLUSION

ICD oversensing of EMI from LVADs is infrequent and can be managed with reprogramming the sensitivity. There was no significant difference in the R-wave SNR with IB versus DB ICD leads.

Heinzel F, Davos CH, Kudaiberdieva G, Frederix I, Svendsen JH, Hansen D. Comprehensive multicomponent cardiac rehabilitation in cardiac implantable electronic devices recipients: a consensus document from the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC; Secondary prevention and rehabilitation section) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a multidisciplinary intervention including patient assessment and medical actions to promote stabilization, management of cardiovascular risk factors, vocational support, psychosocial management, physical activity counselling, and prescription of exercise training. Millions of people with cardiac implantable electronic devices live in Europe and their numbers are progressively increasing, therefore, large subsets of patients admitted in CR facilities have a cardiac implantable electronic device. Patients who are cardiac implantable electronic devices recipients are considered eligible for a CR programme. This is not only related to the underlying heart disease but also to specific issues, such as psychological adaptation to living with an implanted device and, in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients, the risk of arrhythmia, syncope, and sudden cardiac death. Therefore, these patients should receive special attention, as their needs may differ from other patients participating in CR. As evidence from studies of CR in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices is sparse, detailed clinical practice guidelines are lacking. Here, we aim to provide practical recommendations for CR in cardiac implantable electronic devices recipients in order to increase CR implementation, efficacy, and safety in this subset of patients.

Implementation of a Postoperative Electronic Health Record Alert for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Patients

PURPOSE

Approximately 2% of surgical patients have an existing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED). Perioperative device reprogramming requires postoperative care to ensure that device settings are restored. Electronic health record (EHR) alerts have been shown to improve communication between providers and decrease time to necessary interventions in other areas of medicine. The aim of this quality improvement project was to create an EHR alert for postoperative CIED patients who require device reprogramming to help clinicians track, remember, and document the timely and safe restoration of device settings.

DESIGN

This project used a pre-post observational design.

METHODS

This project was conducted at a major academic medical center using a pre-post observational design. To prevent anesthesia providers from closing an encounter in the EHR before postoperative restoration of device settings, an alert was developed and embedded within the intraoperative EHR to track preoperative device reprogramming, and alert anesthesia providers to perform and document postoperative restoration of safe settings.

FINDINGS

The postimplementation group (n = 272) had fewer unknown or undocumented preoperative CIED interventions (12.9% vs 30.9%), a 7.3% shorter device suspension time (median = 165 minutes vs 178 minutes), 6.8% improvement in documentation of postoperative re-enabling of device therapies (78.8% vs 72.0%), and a 72.48% decrease in length of stay (median = 625 hours vs 172 hours) when compared with the preimplementation group (n = 132).

CONCLUSION

Electronic prompts effectively captured patients who received preoperative CIED reprogramming and provided a process for reprogramming devices to safe settings, both significant steps in preventing negative patient outcomes associated with undocumented CIED interventions. Perioperative CIED documentation improved, and length of stay decreased after project implementation.

Comprehensive multicomponent cardiac rehabilitation in cardiac implantable electronic devices recipients: a consensus document from the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC; Secondary prevention and rehabilitation section) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a multidisciplinary intervention including patient assessment and medical actions to promote stabilization, management of cardiovascular risk factors, vocational support, psychosocial management, physical activity counselling, and prescription of exercise training. Millions of people with cardiac implantable electronic devices live in Europe and their numbers are progressively increasing, therefore, large subsets of patients admitted in CR facilities have a cardiac implantable electronic device. Patients who are cardiac implantable electronic devices recipients are considered eligible for a CR programme. This is not only related to the underlying heart disease but also to specific issues, such as psychological adaptation to living with an implanted device and, in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients, the risk of arrhythmia, syncope, and sudden cardiac death. Therefore, these patients should receive special attention, as their needs may differ from other patients participating in CR. As evidence from studies of CR in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices is sparse, detailed clinical practice guidelines are lacking. Here, we aim to provide practical recommendations for CR in cardiac implantable electronic devices recipients in order to increase CR implementation, efficacy, and safety in this subset of patients.

Electromagnetic interference in cardiac electronic implants caused by novel electrical appliances emitting electromagnetic fields in the intermediate frequency range: a systematic review

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the intermediate frequency (IF) range are generated by many novel electrical appliances, including electric vehicles, radiofrequency identification systems, induction hobs, or energy supply systems, such as wireless charging systems. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate whether cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are susceptible to electromagnetic interference (EMI) in the IF range (1 kHz-1 MHz). Additionally, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different types of studies used to investigate EMI. Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, we collected and evaluated studies examining EMI in in vivo studies, in vitro studies (phantom studies, benchmark tests), and simulation studies. Our analysis revealed that cardiac implants are susceptible to malfunction induced by EMF in the IF range. Electromagnetic interference may in particular be provoked by security systems and induction hobs. The results of the studies evaluated in this systematic review further indicate that the likelihood for EMI is dependent on exposure-related parameters (field strength, frequency, and modulation) and on implant- as well as on lead-related parameters (model, type of implant, implant sensitivity setting, lead configuration, and implantation site). The review shows that the factors influencing EMI are not sufficiently characterized and EMF limit values for CIED patients cannot be derived yet. Future studies should therefore, consider exposure-related parameters as well as implant- and lead-related parameters systematically. Additionally, worst-case scenarios should be considered in all study types where possible.

Patients with pacemakers or defibrillators do not need to worry about e-Cars: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Electric cars are increasingly used for public and private transportation and represent possible sources of electromagnetic interference (EMI). Potential implications for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) range from unnecessary driving restrictions to life-threatening device malfunction. This prospective, cross-sectional study was designed to assess the EMI risk of electric cars on CIED function.

METHODS

One hundred and eight consecutive patients with CIEDs presenting for routine follow-up between May 2014 and January 2015 were enrolled in the study. The participants were exposed to electromagnetic fields generated by the four most common electric cars (Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model S, BMW i3, VW eUp) while roller-bench test-driving at Institute of Automotive Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University, Munich. The primary endpoint was any abnormalities in CIED function (e.g. oversensing with pacing-inhibition, inappropriate therapy or mode-switching) while driving or charging electric cars as assessed by electrocardiographic recordings and device interrogation.

RESULTS

No change in device function or programming was seen in this cohort which is representative of contemporary CIED devices. The largest electromagnetic field detected was along the charging cable during high current charging (116.5 μT). The field strength in the cabin was lower (2.1-3.6 μT).

CONCLUSIONS

Electric cars produce electromagnetic fields; however, they did not affect CIED function or programming in our cohort. Driving and charging of electric cars is likely safe for patients with CIEDs.

Incidence of magnet mode in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

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.

[Cardiac implantable electronic devices : Electromagnetic interference from electrocauterization, lithotripsy and physiotherapy]

The management of patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) poses a particular challenge in the peri-interventional and perioperative medical environment due to the many forms of possible electromagnetic interference. Although the devices encountered nowadays are of increasing complexity, the vast majority of procedures can be safely performed in patients. The existing position statements and recommendations, however, have a low level of evidence and are often contradictory. In the context of intraoperative electrocauterization, one of the most important sources of electromagnetic interference in the medical environment, recent studies have suggested an increasingly pragmatically perioperative CIED management, which is not represented in the existing recommendations. This article gives an example of these newer findings and reports the currently used and appropriately adapted perioperative CIED management protocol. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was thought to cause severe interference in CIED patients based on older studies and in vitro experiments. Although electromagnetic interference is possible, clinical observations with modern devices show that the procedure can generally be safely applied in CIED patients. Physiotherapy often utilizes a variety of electromechanical devices, which can be a relevant source of electromagnetic interference. Although some of these therapies can be safely used, coordination with the responsible CIED unit is recommended.

Comparison of perioperative strategies in ICD patients: The perioperative ICD management study (PIM study)

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and the frequency of surgery on these patients are steadily on the rise. Guidelines recommend preoperative ICD reprogramming, although this is sometimes difficult in clinical practice. Placing a magnet on the ICD is a practical alternative and even no inactivation is possible in selected cases.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, we compared different perioperative ICD management strategies depending on the location of the surgery and the type of electrocautery used. Patients undergoing surgery above the umbilicus with monopolar electrocautery had their ICD therapy inactivated by reprogramming. When surgery below the navel or surgery above the navel with bipolar electrocautery was completed, ICD inactivation was performed using a magnet. No inactivation was performed on patients undergoing lower extremity surgery with bipolar electrocautery. Only ICD patients who were not pacemaker dependent were enrolled. After surgery, the ICDs were assessed regarding documented arrhythmias and parameters.

RESULTS

Out of 101 patients included in this study, the ICD was preoperatively reprogrammed in 42 patients (41.6%), a magnet was used on 45 patients (44.5%), and ICDs were not deactivated at all in 14 patients (13.9%). No intraoperative electromagnetic interference was detected. Postoperative ICD analysis demonstrated no changes of preset parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

All three tested ICD management strategies were proved safe in this study. Keeping the location of surgery and the type of electrocautery in mind, an intraoperative magnet or even no ICD deactivation at all could be feasible alternatives in surgery on patients with ICDs.