Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33433742›Full record

ReviewJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2021

Electromagnetic interference between implantable cardiac devices and continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: a review.

Jonathan S Gordon, Elizabeth J Maynes, Thomas J O'Malley, Behzad B Pavri, Vakhtang Tchantchaleishvili

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Interference of a ventricular assist device with magnetic navigation during insertion of Sherlock 3CG™, a bedside peripherally inserted central catheter.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jonathan S GordonDivision of Cardiac Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 1025 Walnut St, Suite 607, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1610-7067
Elizabeth J MaynesDivision of Cardiac Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 1025 Walnut St, Suite 607, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Thomas J O'MalleyDepartment of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Behzad B PavriDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Vakhtang TchantchaleishviliDivision of Cardiac Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 1025 Walnut St, Suite 607, Philadelphia, PA, USA. vakhtang.tchantchaleishvili@jefferson.edu.
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVAD) have other, co-existing implantable cardiac devices. While such devices often function appropriately, there is potential for electromagnetic interference (EMI). A literature review was performed to identify cases of EMI between CF-LVAD and other implanted cardiac devices to better understand their etiology, outcomes, and the strategies used to overcome such interference. The cases identified included interference between CF-LVAD and pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy. The EMI reported in the current literature can be broken down into two general categories: interference leading to difficulty establishing telemetry and interference leading to impaired electrical signal sensing. Such interference led to inappropriate shock delivery in some cases. The type of interference, and thus treatments, differed and were device dependent. The strategies employed to reduce interference included metal shielding, physical manipulation to increase the distance between devices, and even exchange of the implanted device with another brand of the same class. To avoid such EMI in the future, physicians must be aware of the reported interference between certain devices, and manufacturers must work more closely to increase the compatibility of implanted cardiac devices.

Indexed as

Cardiac Resynchronization TherapyDefibrillators, ImplantableHeart-Assist DevicesElectromagnetic PhenomenaHeart VentriclesHumansCF-LVADCRTElectromagnetic interferenceEMIICDImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorLeft ventricular assist devicePacemaker

Identifiers

PMID33433742
OpenAlexW3118898439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.