Interference between pacemakers/implantable cardioverter defibrillators and video capsule endoscopy

Dirk Bandorski, Medical Clinic II, University Hospital Giessen und Marburg GmbH, 35392 Giessen, Germany.
World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy 04/2013; 5(4):201-2. DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v5.i4.201
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Our Letter to the Editor, related to the article "Small bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators: Outcome analysis using telemetry" by Cuschieri et al, comments on some small errors, that slipped into the authors discussions. The given informations concerning the pacemaker- and implantable cardioverter defibrillators modes were inaccurate and differ between the text and the table. Moreover, as 8 of 20 patient's pacemakers were programmed to VOO or DOO ("interference mode") and one patient was not monitored by telemetry during capsule endoscopy, 9 of 20 patients (45%) lack the informations of possible interference between capsule endoscopy their implanted device. Another objection refers to the interpretation of an electrocardiogram (figure 1, trace B) presented: in contrast to the author's opinion the marked spike should be interpreted as an artefact and not as "undersensing of a fibrillatory wave". Finally, three comments to cited reviews were not complete respectively not quoted correctly.

Download full-text


Available from: Dirk Bandorski, Apr 11, 2014
32 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The diagnostic benefit of capsule endoscopy in suspected small-bowel disease is high and seems to be superior to that with conventional methods and scintigraphy. Because of the limited clinical experience in patients with cardiac pacemakers and other implanted electrical devices, it is recommended that capsule endoscopy should not be used in such cases. We investigated the potential for capsule endoscopy to interfere with cardiac pacemakers in vitro. 21 different pacemakers and leads were positioned in a 0.9 % saline solution in a tank. Pin jacks were placed that were in contact with the solution. The pacemaker impulse was recorded and an inhibiting signal could be coupled in. The capsules (Given Imaging and Olympus) were placed in different positions relative to the cardiac pacemaker and finally placed on the case of the pacemaker, for 1 minute in each site. The functioning of the pacemaker was observed continuously. The effect on the pacemaker was noted particularly as inhibition, synchronization, or no effect. The pacemaker was then inhibited using a standard test signal. There was no interference between the video capsule and the cardiac pacemakers in our experiment in spite of the close proximity of the two devices. The clinical use of capsule endoscopy is unproblematic in patients with cardiac pacemakers.
    Endoscopy 02/2008; 40(1):36-9. DOI:10.1055/s-2007-995353 · 5.05 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine if there were any interactions between cardiac devices and small bowel capsules secondary to electromagnetic interference (EMI) in patients who have undergone small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE). Authors conducted a chart review of 20 patients with a cardiac pacemaker (CP) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) who underwent continuous electrocardiographic monitoring during their SBCE from 2003-2008. authors searched for unexplained electrocardiogram (ECG) findings, changes in CP and ICD set parameters, any abnormality in transmitted capsule data, and adverse clinical events. There were no adverse events or hemodynamically significant arrhythmias reported. CP and ICD set parameters were preserved. The majority of ECG abnormalities were also found in pre- or post- SBCE ECG tracings and the CP behavior during arrhythmias appeared appropriate. Two patients seemed to have episodes of undersensing by the CP. However, similar findings were documented in ECGs taken outside the time frame of the SBCE. One patient was observed to have a low signal encountered from the capsule resulting in lack of localization, but no images were lost. Capsule-induced EMI remains a possibility but is unlikely to be clinically important. CP-induced interference of SBCE is also possible, but is infrequent and does not result in loss of images transmitted by the capsule.
    03/2012; 4(3):87-93. DOI:10.4253/wjge.v4.i3.87
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The topic of interference of pacemakers by mobile phones has evoked a surprisingly strong interest, not only in pacemaker patients, but also in the public opinion. The latter is the more surprising, as in the past, the problem of interference has scarcely found the attention that it deserves in the interest of the patient. It was the intention of our investigation to test as many pacemaker models as possible to determine whether incompatibility with mobile phones of different modes may exist, using an in vitro measuring setup. We had access to 231 different models of 20 manufacturers. During the measurements, a pulse generator together with a suitable lead was situated in a 0.9 g/L saline solution, and the antenna of a mobile phone was positioned as close as possible. If the pulse generator was disturbed, the antenna was elevated until interference ceased. The gap in which interference occurred was defined as "maximum interference distance." All three nets existing in Germany, the C-net (450 MHz, analogue), the D-net (900 MHz, digital pulsed), and the E-net (1,800 MHz, digital pulsed) were tested in succession. Out of 231 pulse generator models, 103 pieces corresponding to 44.6% were influenced either by C- or D-net, if both results were totaled. However, this view is misleading as no patient will use C- and D-net phones simultaneously. Separated into C- or D-net interference, the result is 30.7% for C or 34.2% for D, respectively, of all models tested. The susceptible models represent 18.6% or 27% of today's living patients, respectively. All models were resistant to the E-net. With respect to D-net phones, all pacemakers of six manufacturers proved to be unaffected. Eleven other manufacturers possessed affected and unaffected models as well. A C-net phone only prolonged up to five pacemaker periods within 10 seconds during dialing without substantial impairment to the patient. Bipolar pacemakers are as susceptible as unipolar ones. The following advice for patients and physicians can be derived from our investigations: though 27% of all patients may have problems with D-net phones (not C- or E-net), the application should generally not be questioned. On the contrary, patients with susceptible devices should be advised that a distance of 20 cm is sufficient to guarantee integrity of the pacemaker with respect to hand held phones. Portables, on the other hand, should have a distance of about 0.5 m. Pacemaker patients really suffering from mobile phones are very rare unless the phone is just positioned in the pocket over the pulse generator. The contralateral pocket or the belt position guarantees, in 99% of all patients, undisturbed operation of the pacemaker. A risk analysis reveals that the portion of patients really suffering from mobile phones is about 1 out of 100,000. Nevertheless, it would be desirable in the future if implanting physicians would use only pacemakers with immunity against mobile phones as guaranteed by the manufacturers.
    Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 11/1996; 19(10):1431-46. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-8159.1996.tb03155.x · 1.13 Impact Factor