ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Safety of bioelectrical impedance analysis in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: A systematic review.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal Diagnostic Ultrasound for Congestion, Perfusion, and Ultrafiltration Tolerance in Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Global leadership initiative on malnutrition criteria using different muscle mass assessment methods in hemodialysis patients: Links to physical performance, quality of life, and clinical outcomes.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is widely used to assess body composition. However, its safety in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) remains uncertain owing to potential electromagnetic interference (EMI). Objective: This study aimed to evaluate potential complications associated with clinical-grade BIA use in patients with CIEDs, based on currently available evidence. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies published up to December 26, 2024, identified through PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was the occurrence of adverse events, including EMI, device malfunction, or arrhythmias. Results: Of 3668 records, 6 cohort studies (n = 531 patients) met the inclusion criteria. These included patients with pacemakers (n = 175), implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (n = 268), and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (n = 154). BIA protocols varied in frequency (5-500 kHz) and current intensity (typically ≤0.8 mA). No study reported clinically significant EMI, device malfunctions, or BIA-induced arrhythmias. Device parameters (eg, lead impedance, pacing thresholds) remained stable before and after BIA exposure. Risk of bias was rated as good in 1 study and fair in 5. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that clinical-grade BIA is safe in patients with CIEDs, with no reported adverse effects or device interferences. These findings contribute to informing and potentially updating previous recommendations that discouraged BIA in this population. However, further high-quality studies are needed to confirm safety across different BIA protocols and device types. Importantly, these findings apply to clinical-grade BIA and should not be extrapolated to consumer-grade wearables, which may present a theoretical risk of CIED interference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.