The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Interference with Cardiac Pacemakers by Cellular Telephones
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence suggests that electromagnetic interference may occur between cardiac pacemakers and wireless hand-held (cellular) telephones, posing a potential public health problem. Electromagnetic interference may occur when the pacemaker is exposed to an electromagnetic field generated by the cellular telephone. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, crossover study, we tested 980 patients with cardiac pacemakers with five types of telephones (one analogue and four digital) to assess the potential for interference. Telephones were tested in a test mode and were programmed to transmit at the maximal power, simulating the worst-case scenario; in addition, one telephone was tested during actual transmission to simulate actual use. Patients were electrocardiographically monitored while the telephones were tested at the ipsilateral ear and in a series of maneuvers directly over the pacemaker. Interference was classified according to the type and clinical significance of the effect. RESULTS: The incidence of any type of interference was 20 percent in the 5533 tests, and the incidence of symptoms was 7.2 percent. The incidence of clinically significant interference was 6.6 percent. There was no clinically significant interference when the telephone was placed in the normal position over the ear. Interference that was definitely clinically significant occurred in only 1.7 percent of tests, and only when the telephone was held over the pacemaker. Interference was more frequent with dual-chamber pacemakers (25.3 percent) than with single-chamber pacemakers (6.8 percent, P<0.001) and more frequent with pacemakers without feed-through filters (28.9 to 55.8 percent) than with those with such filters (0.4 to 0.8 percent, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Cellular telephones can interfere with the function of implanted cardiac pacemakers. However, when telephones are placed over the ear, the normal position, this interference does not pose a health risk.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A Survey on Security and Privacy Issues in Modern Healthcare Systems: Attacks and Defenses
Newaz, A. I., Sikder, A. K., Rahman, M. A., & Uluagac, A. S. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare · doi:10.1145/3453176 · Cited by 225
Deep brain stimulation and electromagnetic interference
Rahimpour, S., Kiyani, M., Hodges, S. E., & Turner, D. A. (2021) · Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2021.106577 · Cited by 63
Kainz, W., Alesch, F., & Chan, D. D. (2003) · BioMedical Engineering OnLine · doi:10.1186/1475-925x-2-11 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Hayes, D. L., Wang, P. J., Reynolds, D. W., Estes, N. A. M., Griffith, J. L., Steffens, R. A., Carlo, G. L., Findlay, G. K., & Johnson, C. M.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1997-05-22
- Volume
- 336
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 1473-1479
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2317624582
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interference with Cardiac Pacemakers by Cellular Telephones. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199705223362101
- The paper
- Hayes, D. L., Wang, P. J., Reynolds, D. W., Estes, N. A. M., Griffith, J. L., Steffens, R. A., Carlo, G. L., Findlay, G. K., & Johnson, C. M. (1997). Interference with Cardiac Pacemakers by Cellular Telephones. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199705223362101
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
