Impact of EAS Systems on Implanted Cardiac Pacemakers and Defibrillators

Norbert Leitgeb, Florian Niedermayr, Gerhard Loos

.

DOI: 10.4236/jemaa.2013.52011                

Abstract

To investigate electromagnetic interference (EMI) of electromagnetic fields (EMF) from electronic article surveillance (EAS) systems with electronic implants numerical anatomical models of pacemaker patients were generated accounting for different implantation sites (left pectoral, right pectoral and abdominal) and body size. Induced interference voltages were calculated with a software package applying the Finite Integration Technique and analysed in dependence on frequency. Results were referred to reported maximum magnetic fields levels measured at EAS systems in the ELF, IF and RF range. With reference to electromagnetic immunity requirements of safety standards of implanted cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators, the numerical analysis showed that the relevance of interference depends on the applied EMF frequency. At EAS systems operating in the RF range, EMI and consequential inadequate pacing is rare but cannot be ruled out. The probability of such events increases at EAS systems in the IF range and even more in the ELF range. Since interference is encountered already at yet existing systems, the situation would be worse if future systems would further increase their emissions by making use of the elevated reference levels recommended in updated exposure guidelines.

Keywords

RFID; Interference; Electromagnetic Fields; Electromagnetic Compatibility; Safety

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	W. Joseph, G. Vermeeren, L. Verloock and F. Goeminne, “In Situ Magnetic Field Exposure and ICNIRP-Based Safety Dis-tances for Electronic Article Surveillance Systems,” Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Vol. 148, No. 4, 2012, pp. 420-427. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncr206
[2]	G. Schmid, R. überbacher, S. Cecil, A. Escorihuela-Navarro, D. Sainitzer and A. Weinfurter, “Determination of the Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Generated by Radio Frequency Indentification (RFIF) Tech-nologies,” 2012. http://doris.bfs.de/jspui/handle/urn:nbn:de:0221-201208089216
[3]	M. Martinéz-Búrdalo, A. Sanchis, A. Matín and R. Villar, “Comparison of SAR and Induced Current Densities in Adults and Children Exposed to Electromagnetic Fields from Electronic Article Surveillance Devices,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 55, No. 4, 2010, pp. 10411055. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/55/4/009
[4]	J. Trulsson, G. Anger and U. Estenberg, “Assessment of Magnetic Fields Surrounding Electronic Article Surveillance Systems in Sweden,” Bioelec-tromagnetics, Vol. 28, 2007, pp. 664-666. doi:10.1002/bem.20359
[5]	W. Boivin, J. Coletta and L. Kerr, “Characterization of the Magnetic Fields around Walk-Through and Hand-Held Metal Detectors,” Health Physics, Vol. 84, No. 5, 2003, pp. 582-593. doi:10.1097/00004032-200305000-00003
[6]	J. H. Bernhardt, A. F. McKinlay and R. Matthes, Eds., “Possible Health Risk to the General Public from the Use of Security and Similar De-vices,” ICNIRP 12/2002, Munic, 2002.
[7]	C. Harris, W. Boivin, S. Boyd, J. Coletta, L. Kerr, K. Kempa and S. Aronoiw, “Electromagnetic Field Strength Levels Surrounding Electronic Article Surveillance (EAS) Systems,” Health Physics, Vol. 78, No. 1, 2000, pp. 2127. doi:10.1097/00004032-200001000-00005
[8]	G. Neubauer, H. Molla-Djaffari, K. D. Pühringer, H. Garn, N. Winkler, H. Preib and G. Schmid, “Measurement and Safety Assessment of Elec-tromagentic Fields around AntiTheft Devices (German),” AUVA Report #23, Vienna, 1998.
[9]	ICNIRP, “Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz),” Health Physics, Vol. 99, No. 6, 2010, pp. 818-836.
[10]	ICNIRP, “Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric and Magnetic Fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz),” Health Physics, Vol. 99, No. 6, 2012, pp. 818-836.
[11]	European Council, “Recommendation Limiting the Public Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz),” Official Journal European Communities No L199/59, 1999.
[12]	S. J. Seidman, R. Brockman, B. M. Lewis, J. Guag, M. J. Shein, W. J. Clement, J. Kippola, D. Digby, C. Barber and D. Huntwork, “In Vitro Tests Reveal Sample Radiofrequency Identification Readers Inducing Clinically Significant Electromagnetic Interference to Implantable Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators,” Heart Rhythm, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2010, pp. 99-107. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2009.09.071
[13]	W. Irnich, “Electronic Security Systems and Active Implantable Medical Devices,” Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, Vol. 25, No. 8, 2002, pp. 1235-1258. doi:10.1046/j.1460-9592.2002.01235.x
[14]	R. Frank, “Be-haviour of 20 Pacemakers as Patients Pass through 2 Models of Theft-Detection Doors,” Annals of Cardiology and Angiology, Vol. 49, No. 3, 2000, pp. 187197.
[15]	J. Mugica, L. Henry and H. Podeur, “Study of Interactions between Permanent Pacemakers and Electronic Antitheft Surveillance Systems,” Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2000, pp. 333-337. doi:10.1111/j.1540-8159.2000.tb06758.x
[16]	M. E. McIvor, J. Reddinger, E. Floden and R. C. Sheppard, “Study of Pacemaker and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Triggering by Elec-tronic Article Surveillance Devices (SPICED TEAS),” Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, Vol. 21, No. 10, 1998, pp. 1847-1861. doi:10.1111/j.1540-8159.1998.tb00002.x
[17]	P. J. Dimbylow, “FDTD Calculations of the Whole Body Averaged SAR in an Anatomically Realistic Voxel Model of the Human Body from 1 MHz to 1 GHz,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 42, No. 3, 1997, pp. 479-490. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/42/3/003
[18]	S. R. Gabriel, W. Lau and C. Gabriel, “The Dielectric Properties of Biologic Tissues: Measurement in the Frequency Range 10 Hz-20 GHz,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 41, No. 11, 1996, pp. 2251-2269. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/41/11/002
[19]	N. Leitgeb, F. Nieder-mayr and C. Fuchs, “Impact of a Radio Frequency Electronic Article Surveillance (EAS) System on Active Implants,” Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications, Vol. 4, No. 9, 2012, pp. 353357. doi:10.4236/jemaa.2012.49049
[20]	N. Leitgeb, F. Niedermayr, R. Neubauer and G. Loos, “Risk of Pacemaker Patients by TASER X26 Contact Mode Application,” Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2012, pp. 96-100. doi:10.4236/jemaa.2012.42012
[21]	N. Leitgeb, F. Niedermayr, R. Neubauer and G. Loos, “Interference of Implanted Cardiac Pacemakers With TASER X26 Dart Mode Application,” Bio-medical Engineering, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2012, pp. 201-206.
[22]	CST Studio? Suite, CST GmbH, Darmstadt, 2009. www.cst.com
[23]	T. Weiland, “A Method for Discretically Solving Maxwell’s Equations for Six-Component Fields (in German),” International Journal of Electronics and Communi-cation, Vol. 31, 1977, pp. 16-120.
[24]	EN 45502-2-1:2003, “Active Implantable Medical Devices. Part 2-1: Particular Re-quirements for Active Implantable Medical Devices Intended to Treat Bradyarrhythmia (Cardiac Pacemakers),” 2003.
[25]	EN 45502-2-2:2003, “Active Implantable Medical Devices. Part 2-1: Particular Requirements for Active Implantable Medical Devices Intended to Treat Tachyarrhythmia (Includes Implantable Defibrillators),” 2003.
[26]	ANSI/AAMI PC69:2007: “Active Implantable Medical DevicesElectromagnetic CompatibilityEMC Test Protocols for Implantable Cardiac Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators,” 2007.
[27]	A. Markewitz, “Annual Report on the German Cardiac Pacemaker Register,” 2009. http://www.pacemaker-register.de
[28]	U. Estenberg, G. Anger and J. Trulsson, “Mapping of Magnetic Fields Surrounding EAS and RFID Systems,” SSI Rapport #3, Stockholm, 2006