Radiated radiofrequency immunity testing of automated external defibrillators - modifications of applicable standards are needed

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We studied the worst-case radiated radiofrequency (RF) susceptibility of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) based on the electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) requirements of a current standard for cardiac defibrillators, IEC 60601-2-4. Square wave modulation was used to mimic cardiac physiological frequencies of 1 - 3 Hz. Deviations from the IEC standard were a lower frequency limit of 30 MHz to explore frequencies where the patient-connected leads could resonate. Also testing up to 20 V/m was performed. We tested AEDs with ventricular fibrillation (V-Fib) and normal sinus rhythm signals on the patient leads to enable testing for false negatives (inappropriate "no shock advised" by the AED).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed radiated exposures in a 10 meter anechoic chamber using two broadband antennas to generate E fields in the 30 - 2500 MHz frequency range at 1% frequency steps. An AED patient simulator was housed in a shielded box and delivered normal and fibrillation waveforms to the AED's patient leads. We developed a technique to screen ECG waveforms stored in each AED for electromagnetic interference at all frequencies without waiting for the long cycle times between analyses (normally 20 to over 200 s).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Five of the seven AEDs tested were susceptible to RF interference, primarily at frequencies below 80 MHz. Some induced errors could cause AEDs to malfunction and effectively inhibit operator prompts to deliver a shock to a patient experiencing lethal fibrillation. Failures occurred in some AEDs exposed to E fields between 3 V/m and 20 V/m, in the 38 - 50 MHz range. These occurred when the patient simulator was delivering a V-Fib waveform to the AED. Also, we found it is not possible to test modern battery-only-operated AEDs for EMI using a patient simulator if the IEC 60601-2-4 defibrillator standard's simulated patient load is used.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>AEDs experienced potentially life-threatening false-negative failures from radiated RF, primarily below the lower frequency limit of present AED standards. Field strengths causing failures were at levels as low as 3 V/m at frequencies below 80 MHz where resonance of the patient leads and the AED input circuitry occurred. This plus problems with the standard's' prescribed patient load make changes to the standard necessary.</p

In-vitro mapping of E-fields induced near pacemaker leads by simulated MR gradient fields

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers is generally contraindicated but some clinicians condone scanning certain patients. We assessed the risk of inducing unintended cardiac stimulation by measuring electric fields (E) induced near lead tips by a simulated MRI gradient system. The objectives of this study are to map magnetically induced E near distal tips of leads in a saline tank to determine the spatial distribution and magnitude of E and compare them with E induced by a pacemaker pulse generator (PG).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We mapped magnetically induced E with 0.1 mm resolution as close as 1 mm from lead tips. We used probes with two straight electrodes (e.g. wire diameter of 0.2 mm separated by 0.9 mm). We generated magnetic flux density (B) with a Helmholtz coil throughout 0.6% saline in a 24 cm diameter tank with (dB/dt) of 1 T/sec (1 kHz sinusoidal waveform). Separately, we measured E near the tip of leads when connected to a PG set to a unipolar mode. Measurements were non-invasive (not altering the leads or PG under study).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>When scaled to 30 T/s (a clinically relevant value), magnetically-induced E exceeded the E produced by a PG. The magnetically-induced E only occurred when B was coincident with or within 15 msec of implantable pacemaker's pulse.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Potentially hazardous situations are possible during an MR scan due to gradient fields. Unintended stimulation can be induced via abandoned leads and leads connected to a pulse generator with loss of hermetic seal at the connector. Also, pacemaker-dependent patients can receive drastically altered pacing pulses.</p

Complexity of MRI induced heating on metallic leads: Experimental measurements of 374 configurations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>MRI induced heating on PM leads is a very complex issue. The widely varying results described in literature suggest that there are many factors that influence the degree of heating and that not always are adequately addressed by existing testing methods.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We present a wide database of experimental measurements of the heating of metallic wires and PM leads in a 1.5 T RF coil. The aim of these measurements is to systematically quantify the contribution of some potential factors involved in the MRI induced heating: the length and the geometric structure of the lead; the implant location within the body and the lead path; the shape of the phantom used to simulate the human trunk and its relative position inside the RF coil.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that the several factors are the primary influence on heating at the tip. Closer locations of the leads to the edge of the phantom and to the edge of the coil produce maximum heating. The lead length is the other crucial factor, whereas the implant area does not seem to have a major role in the induced temperature increase. Also the lead structure and the geometry of the phantom revealed to be elements that can significantly modify the amount of heating.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings highlight the factors that have significant effects on MRI induced heating of implanted wires and leads. These factors must be taken into account by those who plan to study or model MRI heating of implants. Also our data should help those who wish to develop guidelines for defining safe medical implants for MRI patients. In addition, our database of the entire set of measurements can help those who wish to validate their numerical models of implants that may be exposed to MRI systems.</p