Interference between active implanted medical devices and electromagnetic field emitting devices is rare but real: results of an incidence study in a population of physicians in France.

Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2014 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream

HarmLow evidencePaper 4578

Study snapshot

PublicationPacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2014

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionHarm

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Assessing the behavior of active implanted medical devices (AIMDs) in response to electromagnetic field (EMF) transmitters is a current issue of great importance. Given the numerous telecommunication systems and our lack of knowledge as to the impact of electromagnetic effects, this study investigated the reality of possible AIMD disturbance by EMFs by interviewing health professionals. METHOD: A self-administered postal questionnaire was sent to almost 5,000 physicians in five specialties: cardiology; endocrinology; ears, nose, and throat; urology; and neurology. It collected data on the existence and annual number of incidents observed and the conditions under which they occurred, the EMF sources involved, and the means of managing the malfunctions. RESULTS: A total of 1,188 physicians agreed to participate. Sixteen percent of participants reported cases of implant failure, three-quarters of whom, mainly in cardiology, reported rates of at least one incident per year-amounting to more than 100 incidents per year in all. Severity appeared to be moderate (discomfort or transient symptoms), but frequently required resetting or, more rarely, replacing the device. Some serious incidents were, however, reported. The sources implicated were basically of two types: electronic security systems (antitheft and airport gates) and medical electromagnetic radiation devices. These incidents were poorly reported within the public health system, preventing follow-up and effective performance of alert and surveillance functions. CONCLUSION: Although minor, the risk of interference between EMF sources and AIMDs is real and calls for vigilance. It particularly concerns antitheft and airport security gates, though other sources may also cause incidents.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typecross_sectional

Effect directionharm

PopulationPhysicians in France (cardiology, endocrinology, ears/nose/throat, urology, neurology) reporting observed incidents involving active implanted medical devices

Sample size1188

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Among 1,188 participating physicians, 16% reported cases of implant failure attributed to EMF sources; three-quarters of those reporting incidents indicated at least one incident per year, totaling more than 100 incidents per year. Incidents were usually of moderate severity (discomfort or transient symptoms) and often required device resetting, more rarely replacement, though some serious incidents were reported; implicated sources were mainly antitheft/airport security gates and medical electromagnetic radiation devices.

Outcomes measured

Incidents of interference/implant malfunction in active implanted medical devices (AIMDs) attributed to EMF sources
Severity of incidents (discomfort/transient symptoms; need for resetting or replacement; serious incidents)
Annual number/rate of incidents observed
Reporting/follow-up within public health system

Limitations

Self-administered postal questionnaire (self-report/recall and reporting biases possible)
Incidents described as poorly reported within the public health system, limiting follow-up and surveillance

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "electronic security systems (antitheft and airport gates) and medical electromagnetic radiation devices",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Physicians in France (cardiology, endocrinology, ears/nose/throat, urology, neurology) reporting observed incidents involving active implanted medical devices",
  "sample_size": 1188,
  "outcomes": [
    "Incidents of interference/implant malfunction in active implanted medical devices (AIMDs) attributed to EMF sources",
    "Severity of incidents (discomfort/transient symptoms; need for resetting or replacement; serious incidents)",
    "Annual number/rate of incidents observed",
    "Reporting/follow-up within public health system"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Among 1,188 participating physicians, 16% reported cases of implant failure attributed to EMF sources; three-quarters of those reporting incidents indicated at least one incident per year, totaling more than 100 incidents per year. Incidents were usually of moderate severity (discomfort or transient symptoms) and often required device resetting, more rarely replacement, though some serious incidents were reported; implicated sources were mainly antitheft/airport security gates and medical electromagnetic radiation devices.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Self-administered postal questionnaire (self-report/recall and reporting biases possible)",
    "Incidents described as poorly reported within the public health system, limiting follow-up and surveillance"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "active implanted medical devices",
    "AIMD",
    "electromagnetic field",
    "EMF",
    "interference",
    "implant malfunction",
    "security gates",
    "antitheft gates",
    "airport gates",
    "medical electromagnetic radiation devices",
    "questionnaire",
    "physicians",
    "France"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.42,
      "reason": "Study surveyed physicians about EMF-related incidents observed in clinical practice."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1111/pace.12269
PubMed: 24033373

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library