Study of Pacemaker and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Triggering by Electronic Article Surveillance Devices (SPICED TEAS)

• Published in: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology 1998-10, Vol.21 (10), p.1847-1861
• Main Authors: MCIVOR, MICHAEL E., REDDINGER, JUDITH, FLODEN, ELIZABETH, SHEPPARD, ROBERT C., Johnson, Delos, Becker, Gerald I., Mayotte, Mark
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acoustics; Adult; Defibrillators, Implantable; Electromagnetic Phenomena - instrumentation; electronic article surveillance systems; Electronics - instrumentation; environmental electromagnetic interference (EMI); Equipment Design; Equipment Failure; Humans; ICDs; Pacemaker, Artificial; pacemakers; Radio Waves; Security Measures; security system; shoplifting gates
• ISSN: 0147-8389; 1540-8159
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1998.tb00002.x

The magnetic fields emitted by electronic article surveillance (EAS) systems (shoplifting gates) are a source of interference for implanted medical devices. In the Study of Pacemaker and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Triggering by Electronic Article Surveillance Devices (SPICED TEAS), 25 adult volunteers with ICDs and 50 with pacemakers were exposed to the fields of six different EAS systems. These EAS systems used three modes of operation: magnetic audio frequency, swept radio frequency, and acoustomagnetic technology. No ICD exhibited interference mimicking sensing of tachyarrhythmias with any EAS system. Pacemakers interacted variably, depending on the type of EAS system. Swept radiofrequency systems produced no interaction with any implanted medical device. One magnetic audio frequency system interacted with 2 of 50 pacemakers. The acoustomagnetic system interacted with 48 of 50 pacemakers. Interactions included asynchronous pacing, atrial oversensing (producing “EAS induced tachycardia” in the ventricle), ventricular oversensing (with pacemaker inhibition), and paced beats resulting from the direct induction of current in the pacemaker (“EAS induced pacing”). These interactions produced symptoms in some patients (palpitations, presyncopel only while patients were in the EAS field. No pacemaker was reprogrammed. We conclude that high energy, pulsed low frequency EAS systems such as acoustomagnetic systems interfere with most pacemakers. Pacemaker patients should be advised to minimize exposure to the fields of such systems to prevent the possibility of serious clinical events.