Advertisement

EMC Design Effectiveness in Electronic Medical Prosthetic Devices

  • John C. Mitchell
  • William D. Hurt
  • Terry O. Steiner

Abstract

The increasing use of electronic prostheses in a society where the numbers and intensities of radiofrequency (RF) radiation sources are ever increasing requires special attention by the manufacturers of the medical devices and the practicing physicians who prescribe these devices. One such device, the artificial cardiac pacemaker, was tested extensively to assess the extent of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation interference (EMI) possible from a variety of RF sources. Pacemaker responses were measured on twenty-one different types (manufacturers and models) of devices, exposed in “free-field” and “simulated-implant” configurations. Relative interference thresholds were vastly different with the most sensitive pacemaker being adversely affected at electric (E) field levels as low as 10 volts per meter and the least sensitive pacemaker being relatively free of interference at levels as high as several hundred volts per meter. In many cases the real time E-field level around radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitters manifests itself as a pulsed or pseudo-pulsed (changing E-field level) signal which can adversely affect cardiac pacemakers and is potentially hazardous for other types of medical prosthetic devices. These empirical findings demonstrate the need for continuing awareness of potential RF interference situations and provide reasonable evidence that through such awareness many of the potential EMI problems can be effectively circumvented.

Keywords

Pulse Repetition Rate Cardiac Pacemaker Prosthetic Device Epicardial Lead Pacemaker Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Crystal, R.G., Kastor, J.A., and Desanctis, R.W.: Inhibition of discharge of an external demand pacemaker by an electric razor. Am. J. Cardiol. 27 (1971) 695–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D’cunha, G. F., Nicound, T., Pemberton, A.H., Rosenboum, F.F., and Botticelli, J.T.: Syncopal attacks arising from erratic demand pacemaker function in the vicinity of a television transmitter. Am. J. Cardiol. 31 (1973) 789–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Escher, J.W., Parker, B., and Furman, S.: Influence of alternating magnetic fields on triggered pacemakers. Supplement II to Circulation XLIV (1971) 162.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Furman, S. et al: The influence of electromagnetic environment on the performance of artificial cardiac pacemakers. Am. Thorac. Surg. 6 (1968) 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    King, G.R., Hamburger, A.C., Forough, P., Heller, S.J., and Carleton, R.A.: Effect of microwave oven on implanted cardiac pacemaker. JAMA 212 (1970) 1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kohler, F.P. and Mackinney, C.C.: Cardiac pacemakers in electrosurgery. JAMA 193 (1965) 855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meibon, J. and Anderson, J.: Inhibition of demand pacemaker by leakage current from electrocardiographic recorder. Brit. Heart J. 33 (1971) 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Michaelson, S.M. and Moss, A.J.: Environmental influences on implanted cardiac pacemakers. JAMA 216 (1971) 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mitchell, J.C., Rustan, P.L., Frazer, Jw., and Hurt, W.D.: Electromagnetic compatibility of cardiac pacemakers. Presented at the 1972 IEEE International Electromagnetic Compatibility Symposium, Arlington Heights IL, and published in the Symposium Record (July 1972).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mitchell, J.C, Hurt, W.D., Walter, W.H., III, and Miller, J.K.: Empirical studies of cardiac pacemaker interference. Aerosp. Med. (February 1974) 189-195.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parker, B., Furman, S., Escher, D.: Input signals to pacemakers in a hospital environment. Ann. NY Acad. Sci, 167 (1969) 823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pickers, B.A. and Goldberg, M.J.: Inhibition of a demand pacemaker and interference with monitoring equipment by radiofre-quency transmissions. Brit. Med. J. 2 (1969) 504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rustan, P.L., Hurt, W.D., and Mitchell, J.C.: Microwave oven interference with cardiac pacemakers. Medical Instrumentation 7 53 (1973).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanchez, S.A.: When you transmit, you can turn off a pacemaker. QST (March 1973) 53.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smyth, N.P.D., Parsonnet, V., Escher, D.J.W., and Furman, S.: The pacemaker patient and the electromagnetic environment. JAMA 227 12 (1974) 1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sowton, E., Gray, K. and Preston, T.: Electrical interference in noncompetitive pacemakers. Brit Heart J. 32 (1970) 626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walter, W.H., III, Mitchell, J.C, Rustan, P.L., Frazer, J.W., and Hirt, W.D.: Cardiac pulse generators and electromagnetic interference. JAMA 224 (1973) 1628–1631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • John C. Mitchell
    • 1
  • William D. Hurt
    • 1
  • Terry O. Steiner
    • 1
  1. 1.USAF School of Aerospace MedicineBrooks Air Force BaseUSA

Personalised recommendations