Cited by 76Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesElectromagnetic Fields and Biological EffectsElectromagnetic Compatibility and Noise Suppression

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Electromagnetic interference in cardiac electronic implants caused by novel electrical appliances emitting electromagnetic fields in the intermediate frequency range: a systematic review

Open access

Abstract

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the intermediate frequency (IF) range are generated by many novel electrical appliances, including electric vehicles, radiofrequency identification systems, induction hobs, or energy supply systems, such as wireless charging systems. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate whether cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are susceptible to electromagnetic interference (EMI) in the IF range (1 kHz-1 MHz). Additionally, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different types of studies used to investigate EMI. Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, we collected and evaluated studies examining EMI in in vivo studies, in vitro studies (phantom studies, benchmark tests), and simulation studies. Our analysis revealed that cardiac implants are susceptible to malfunction induced by EMF in the IF range. Electromagnetic interference may in particular be provoked by security systems and induction hobs. The results of the studies evaluated in this systematic review further indicate that the likelihood for EMI is dependent on exposure-related parameters (field strength, frequency, and modulation) and on implant- as well as on lead-related parameters (model, type of implant, implant sensitivity setting, lead configuration, and implantation site). The review shows that the factors influencing EMI are not sufficiently characterized and EMF limit values for CIED patients cannot be derived yet. Future studies should therefore, consider exposure-related parameters as well as implant- and lead-related parameters systematically. Additionally, worst-case scenarios should be considered in all study types where possible.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/europace/euy155

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Wireless charging methods like inductive coupling can cause electromagnetic interference (EMI) with RF-based data transmission, disrupting communication integrity.

    “Wireless charging methods like inductive coupling, while efficient for power delivery, can cause electromagnetic interference (EMI) with RF-based data transmission, disrupting communication integrity (Seckler et al., 2015; Driessen et al., 2019; Nadeem et al., 2021).”

    From Comparative analysis of energy transfer mechanisms for neural implants (2024) · cites this paper as Driessen et al., 2019

    The Results (Phantom studies; page not provided) report that some wireless power-transfer systems caused EMI in cardiac implants. The paper does not report interference with RF-based data transmission or disrupted communication integrity, so it supports only the broader wireless-charging EMI point. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. IEEE C95.6-2002, 2002
  2. IEEE C95.1-2005, 2006

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Driessen, S., Napp, A., Schmiedchen, K., Kraus, T., & Stunder, D.
Affiliations
Universitätsklinikum Aachen (DE)
Corresponding author
Driessen, Sarah
Venue
EP Europace
Published
2018-07-09
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
219-229
ISSN
  • 1099-5129 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2092
OpenAlex
W2815969551
Cited by
76
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3
FWCI
0.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EP Europace (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
European Research Group on Environment and Health in the Transport Sector
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Electromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electromagnetic Compatibility and Noise Suppression
Keywords
electromagnetic interference, cardiac implantable electronic devices, electric vehicles, induction hob, wireless charging, equipment failure, electromagnetic field exposure, lead configuration
MeSH terms
Animals, Cooking, Electromagnetic Fields, Environmental Exposure, Household Articles, Humans, Pacemaker, Artificial, Electric Power Supplies, Prosthesis Design, Prosthesis Failure, Risk Factors, Defibrillators, Implantable, Risk Assessment

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