Interference to Pacemaker/ICD Function by Commonly Encountered Electronic Devices: When and How Much to Worry About?

  • M. Santomauro
  • C. D’Ascia
  • A. Costanzo
  • L. Ottaviano
  • G. Donnici
  • M. Chiariello
Conference paper


Electromagnetic interference (EMI) and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) are problems that increasingly claim the attention of the biomedical industry all over the world. The potential risk of interaction between radiofrequencies of transmitters and medical devices is well documented and frequently reported in the scientific press [1–7]. In a technogically advanced world, radiating EMIs are omnipresent at home, work and other everyday environments (Table 1). They are spread by different modes (Table 2), such as electrical lines or cables, electrostatic induction, electromagnetic radiation, intentional transmitters (radar, radio, TV and satellite transmissions, mobile telecommunication systems, scientific equipment) and unintentional transmitters (induction heaters, electrical equipment, car ignition systems, diathermy generators), and they constitute the main source of disturbance to active medical devices equipped with an electrical circuit prone to detect them.


Code Division Multiple Access Cellular Phone Time Division Multiple Access Universal Mobile Telecommunication System Anechoic Chamber 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Walter WH, Mitchell JC, Rustan et al (1973) Cardiac pulse generators and electromagnetic interference. J Am Med Assoc 12:1628–1631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Imich W (1984) Interference in pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 7:1021–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barbaro V, Bartolini P (1999) External electromagnetic interference with implantable cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators. MESPE 1:128–133Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barbaro V, Bartolini P, Tarricone L (1991) Evaluation of static magnetic field levels interfering with pacemakers. Physiol Med 7:73–76Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Toivonen L, Valjus J, Hongisto M, Mesto R (1991) The influence of elevated 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields on implanted cardiac pacemakers: the role of the lead configuration and programming of sensitivity. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 14:2114–2122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belott P, Sands S et al (1984) Resetting of DDD pacemakers due to EMI. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 7:169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hayes D (1992) EMI update. 9th Annual National Symposium on Pacing and Arrhythmia control, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Irnich W (1984) Interference in pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 7:1021PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Telectronics Technical Note (1996) Electromagnetic interference and the pacemaker patients: an updateGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barbaro V, Bartolini P, Andrea D et al (1995) Do European GSM mobile cellular phones pose a potential risk to pacemaker patients? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 18:1218–1224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Naegeli B, Osswald S, Deola M, Burkart F (1996) Intermittent pacemaker disfunction caused by digital mobile phones. J Am Coll Cardiol 27:1471–1477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barbaro V, Bartolini P, Bellocci F et al (1998) Elecromagnetic interference of digital and analog cellular telephones with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: in vitro and in vivo studies. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 22:626–6234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ehles C, Andresen D, Bruggemann T et al (1995) Functional pacemaker interference by mobile telephones. Circulation 92[Suppl 1]:1–738 (abstr)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meisei E, Kopscek H, Klinghammer L, Daniel WG (1995) Interference of mobile phones with function of implanted pacemakers & how significant is the risk? Circulation 92[Suppl 1]:1–738 (abstr)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hayes DL, VonFeldt LK, Neubauer SA et al (1995) Effect of digital cellular phones on permanent pacemaker. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 18:863–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nowak B, Rosocha S, Zeuerhoff C et al (1996) Is there a risk for interactions between mobile phones and single lead VDD pacemakers? J Am Coll Cardiol 27[Suppl A]:236A(abstr)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carillo R, Williams DB, Traad EA, Schor JS (1996) Electromagnetic filters impede adverse interference of pacemakers by digital telephones. J Am Coll Cardiol 27[Suppl A]:15 (abstr)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ellenbogen KH, Wood MH (1996) Chiamata urgente o numéro sbagliato? J Am Coll Cardiol 27:1478–1479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barbaro V, Bartolini P, Donato A, Militiello C (1996) Interferenze tra telefoni cellulari e pacemaker. Stato delParte al 1995. Cardiostimolazione 14:10–19Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barbaro V, Bartolini P, Donato A et al (1995) GSM and TACS cellular phones can alter pacemaker function. BEMS Abstract Book: Seventeenth Annual Meeting. Boston, MA, USA, June 18–22; pp 24–26Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barbaro V, Bartolini P, Donato A, Militello C (1996) Electromagnetic interference of analog cellular telephones with pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 19:1410–1418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tofani S (1996) Stazioni radio base per la telefonia cellulare e sanità pubblica. AIRM -XIV Atti Congresso Nazionale Caserta, 1–3 LuglioGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carrillo R (1995) Preliminary observations on cellular telephones and pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 18:863Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Santomauro M, Amendolara A, Costanzo A et al (1997) Cellular phones and pacemakers: how do they interact? Cardiac Arrhythmias. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 514–521Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Santomauro M, D’Ascia C, Costanzo A et al (2000) Interferenze elettromagnetiche nei portatori di device impiantabili: rischi potenziali o reali? Cardiologia 34th Convegno Internazionale pp 410–414Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Santomauro M, D’Ascia C, Costanzo A et al (2000) How risk mobile telephones for patients with pacemaker or ICD? Cardiac Arrhythmias. Fifth International Symposium, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 58–63Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barbaro V, Bartolini P, Donato A et al (1981) GSM cellular phones interferences with implantable pacemakers: in vitro observations. Proceeding of the Vth International Symposium on Biomedical Engineering, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, September pp 275–276Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barbaro V, Bartolini P, Donato A, Militello C (1996) Sistema Telepass: analisi dei rischi di interferenza elettromagnetica con pacemaker. Istituto Superiore di Sanità (Rapporti ISTISAN 96/42). Rome, p 56Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barbaro V, Bartolini P, Donato A et al (1996) Sistemi automatizzati per il controllo degli accessi: analisi dei rischi sanitari. Istituto Superiore di Sanità (Rapporti ISTISAN 96/2). Rome, p 52Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mclvor ME (1995) Environmental electromagnetic intereference from electronic article surveillance devices. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 18:2229–2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barbaro V, Bartolini P, Battisti S et al (1991) Esposizione al campo elettromagnetico e corretto funzionamento dei pacemaker: il caso del treno ad alta velocità ETR450. 54 th Congresso Nazionale délia Società Italiana di Medicina del Lavoro e Igiene Industriale, L’Aquila (Italy), October 9–12, pp 1147–1150Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bartolini P (1994) Interazione dei campi elettromagnetici prodotti da una risonanza magnetica con protesi e materiali ferromagnetici. Ann 1st Super Sanità 30:51–70Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gimbel JR, Johnson D, Levine PA, Wilkoff BL (1996) Safe performance of magnetic resonance imaging on five patients with permanent cardiac pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 19:913–919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dodinot B, Godenir J, Costa AB (1993) Electronic article surveillance: a possible danger for pacemaker patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 16:46–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Levy S (1999) FESC: ESC statement on possible interference between electronic article surveillance system and implanted pacemakers or defibrillators. Newsletter, May 8Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mugica J, Henry L, Podeur H (2000) Study of interactions between permanent pacemakers and electronic antitheft surveillance systems. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 23:333–337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Santomauro
    • 1
  • C. D’Ascia
    • 1
  • A. Costanzo
    • 1
  • L. Ottaviano
    • 1
  • G. Donnici
    • 1
  • M. Chiariello
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cardiology and Cardiac SurgeryUniversity Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations