Cell Phones & ICD's

Links to news stories of interest to heart patients.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Michael L
Posts: 528
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 8:39 am
Location: Central Florida

Cell Phones & ICD's

Post by Michael L » February 11th, 2016, 2:32 pm

http://europace.oxfordjournals.org/cont ... ace.euv374

Abstract
Aims Manufacturers of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) recommend that cell phones be maintained at a distance of ∼15 cm from the implanted device in order to avoid risk of dysfunction due to electromagnetic interference (EMI). Data relating to this issue are outdated and do not reflect modern technology. Our aim was to evaluate whether EMI is still an issue with contemporary ICDs and smartphones.
Methods and results Consecutive patients implanted with a wireless-enabled ICD were tested for potential interference with two models of recent 4G smartphones in conditions intended to maximize risk of EMI. A magnet effect (due to the phone speakers) was tested by placing the smartphones in the standby mode directly over the ICD generator. The presence of EMI artefacts on the real-time electrograms was evaluated by placing the smartphones in the standby, dialling, and operating modes directly over the generator casing and over the parasternal region in the vicinity of the ventricular lead. A total of 63 patients equipped with 29 different models of single, dual, or biventricular ICDs from five major manufacturers were included. None of the patients showed any evidence of interference with the smartphones during any of the 882 tests.
Conclusion The risk of EMI between modern smartphones and contemporary ICDs is low. This is probably due to the filters incorporated in the ICDs and low emission by the phones, as well as the small size of the magnets in the smartphones tested.
Study registration NCT02330900 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
Biotronik Ilesto 7 implanted May 5, 2014
CABG 3X February 1998

User avatar
mykidsmom
Posts: 3376
Joined: February 9th, 2012, 5:09 pm

Re: Cell Phones & ICD's

Post by mykidsmom » February 11th, 2016, 3:25 pm

oh gosh....i think ive mentioned i always stick my iphone in my bra running after the kids...hmmmmmm
I think.....Therefore I am.!!!!!

User avatar
freckles1880
Moderator
Posts: 8664
Joined: April 18th, 2009, 7:19 pm
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Re: Cell Phones & ICD's

Post by freckles1880 » February 11th, 2016, 6:17 pm

mykidsmom wrote:oh gosh....i think ive mentioned i always stick my iphone in my bra running after the kids...hmmmmmm
I have never placed mine in my bra. I'm not in the condition where I need to wear one, yet. :runaway:

I think what we need to remember is "why take the chance?" I just don't carry anything in my shirt pocket as it is not comfortable anyway. I am sure the guidelines issued about how far from your ICD to keep certain things is to protect the manufacturer if something were to happen. They could say we warned you. Plus do we really know what new inventions are coming and what products are included. Hearing aids have gone back to NOT using certain Lithium type batteries as they are not as safe to use in them. The old (now new) ones don't last as long but are safer.

My intention is to look at the guidelines and make every attempt to follow them.

wavhi
Bob

Medtronic-Visia AF implanted 7-8-2016 stayed with the with 6947 Sprint Quattro Secure lead. Original ICD implant 2-4-2009. ICD turned off 10-6-17 as stage 4 lung cancer taking over.
Major heart attack, carcinogenic shock and quad bypass 10-13-08 post myocardial infarction, old inferior MI complicated by shock and CHF, combined, Atherosclerosis, abdominal aortic Aneurysm, Seroma 7 cm, left leg. Stent in the left main vein 10-7-2014

My "Wardens" are my bride of 54+ years and my daughters.

User avatar
mykidsmom
Posts: 3376
Joined: February 9th, 2012, 5:09 pm

Re: Cell Phones & ICD's

Post by mykidsmom » February 11th, 2016, 7:35 pm

these are the things ive been known to carry in my bra.......mind you at 38 im not trying to impress anyone so thats an advantage when out without a purse ...

my cell phone,
my small card holder, with visa, debit and drivers licence,
my ciggie lighter,
and my car keys..

No obviously all these wont fit together...but i have combined car keys and cell phone..

You could get a sports bra...or small training bra freckles....
I think.....Therefore I am.!!!!!

User avatar
David882
Posts: 882
Joined: July 12th, 2014, 8:58 pm
Location: 49 06' 42.42" N 113 49' 52.52" W

Re: Cell Phones & ICD's

Post by David882 » February 11th, 2016, 8:10 pm

The test was with two models of 4G smartphones. The number of smartphones selected is not exactly representative of the technology base. The sample size is so small, 2 phones, I am not sure how one would argue that 2 represents the current technology. No evidence was provide to suggest that the phones are representative of the current technology. They could have attempted to get the spec sheets for a number of phones and then picked two that represented the worst case. It is possible the test was conducted with 2 of the least powerful phones.

Second the testing does not appear to have been supported with a spectrum analysis. That is the ElectroMagnetic Interference sensitivities of the ICDs are not understood to have been compared to the possible outputs of the 2 phones or a larger representative sample of 4G smart phones. So the testing may have been with phones that are on the low end of the frequency spectrum for 4G phones or maybe on the high end. Other 4G phone models may produce a different signature and the study does not explain why these 2 phones represent the worst case or best case. In other words it is unclear what exactly the test results represents, except that 2 phones don't cause a problem even if you test them 800 plus times.

It appear that the testing performed considered 3 test states, with 2 phones, 63 patients, 882 test events and perhaps the most positive thing we can say is no one died. I note that the claim is that none of the patients showed any evidence of interference. So if there is a long term effect we won't know because there is no long term aspect to this testing. Additionally, if the exposure altered the ICD code in some subtle way and perhaps in some rarely used part of the code, they do not know. Because they did not inspect the code before and after the testing. I sure hope that the code that says "shock" is still working. However, we don't know...

Glad to see someone doing testing. Do hope someone will produce a bit more robust test protocol.

Based on what can be read, this is not testing for which i would have volunteered.
With Respect,
David

11 Sept 2012 / Idiopathic Ventricular Fibrillation
At about 2AM I started storming at home, and in the ambulance, and in the ER.
Sometimes I restated and sometimes I had to be defibrillated.
A number of times I went into arrest and stopped breathing.
External defibrillation count exceeded 18 and at some point the team induced a coma.
24 hours later I was revived and have never had another event.
13 Sept 2012 / Medtronic ICD was implanted.
My diagnosis is still idiopathic.

User avatar
David882
Posts: 882
Joined: July 12th, 2014, 8:58 pm
Location: 49 06' 42.42" N 113 49' 52.52" W

Re: Cell Phones & ICD's

Post by David882 » February 11th, 2016, 8:19 pm

MKM:

Based on the description of what you carry in you bra...you appear to be well stocked.
With Respect,
David

11 Sept 2012 / Idiopathic Ventricular Fibrillation
At about 2AM I started storming at home, and in the ambulance, and in the ER.
Sometimes I restated and sometimes I had to be defibrillated.
A number of times I went into arrest and stopped breathing.
External defibrillation count exceeded 18 and at some point the team induced a coma.
24 hours later I was revived and have never had another event.
13 Sept 2012 / Medtronic ICD was implanted.
My diagnosis is still idiopathic.

User avatar
mykidsmom
Posts: 3376
Joined: February 9th, 2012, 5:09 pm

Re: Cell Phones & ICD's

Post by mykidsmom » February 12th, 2016, 9:00 am

for every eventuality david hahahaaa....and im well weighted down which is why i avoid deep puddles :big-hug:
I think.....Therefore I am.!!!!!

Post Reply