Limits...
Assessment of Electromagnetic Interference with Active Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs) Caused by the Qi A13 Design Wireless Charging Board.

Seckler T, Jagielski K, Stunder D - Int J Environ Res Public Health (2015)

Bottom Line: To do so the voltage induced in CIEDs by Qi A13 design magnetic fields were measured and compared with the performance limits set by ISO 14117.With the Qi‑A13‑Board in power transfer mode 10.8% and in pinging mode 45.7% (2.2% at 10 cm distance) of the performance limit were reached at maximum.In neither of the scrutinized cases, did the voltage induced by the Qi‑A13‑Board exceed the performance limits.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction (FEMU), Institute and Out-patient Clinic of Occupational Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstr 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany. seckler@femu.rwth-aachen.de.

ABSTRACT
Electromagnetic interference is a concern for people wearing cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The aim of this study was to assess the electromagnetic compatibility between CIEDs and the magnetic field of a common wireless charging technology. To do so the voltage induced in CIEDs by Qi A13 design magnetic fields were measured and compared with the performance limits set by ISO 14117. In order to carry this out a measuring circuit was developed which can be connected with unipolar or bipolar pacemaker leads. The measuring system was positioned at the four most common implantation sites in a torso phantom filled with physiological saline solution. The phantom was exposed by using Helmholtz coils from 5 µT to 27 µT with 111 kHz sine‑bursts or by using a Qi A13 design wireless charging board (Qi‑A13‑Board) in two operating modes "power transfer" and "pinging". With the Helmholtz coils the lowest magnetic flux density at which the performance limit was exceeded is 11 µT. With the Qi‑A13‑Board in power transfer mode 10.8% and in pinging mode 45.7% (2.2% at 10 cm distance) of the performance limit were reached at maximum. In neither of the scrutinized cases, did the voltage induced by the Qi‑A13‑Board exceed the performance limits.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

(a) Torso phantom and Qi-A13-Board (pinging mode) on the lateral wall; (b) AVID-Receiver close to the edge of the Qi-A13-Board. If the AVID-Receiver was moved further over the edge the connection was interrupted.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4483677&req=5

ijerph-12-05886-f005: (a) Torso phantom and Qi-A13-Board (pinging mode) on the lateral wall; (b) AVID-Receiver close to the edge of the Qi-A13-Board. If the AVID-Receiver was moved further over the edge the connection was interrupted.

Mentions: In the power transfer mode 10.8% of the performance limit was reached at maximum (cf.Table 2 LPA unipolar lead). Using a bipolar lead 7.5% of the performance limit was reached at maximum (RPA). The induced voltage in both implant-housing positions and with both lead types was higher at the atrium position than at the ventricle positions—20% to 67% for the bipolar lead and 60% to 88% for the unipolar lead. In Table 2 the induced worst-case voltages that occurred during the exposure with the Qi-A13-Board in power transfer mode are given. The highest voltages were induced when the AVID-Receiver and the Qi-A13-Board together were in the worst-case position. The AVID-Receiver was then close to the edge of the Qi-A13-Board (cf.Figure 5b). The worst-case position of the AVID-Receiver and the Qi-A13-Board on the torso phantom changed whenever the implantation site or the lead type was changed. In general it can be stated, that the worst-case position was on the lateral wall of the phantom at a height slightly above the tip of the lead (cf.Figure 5a).


Assessment of Electromagnetic Interference with Active Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs) Caused by the Qi A13 Design Wireless Charging Board.

Seckler T, Jagielski K, Stunder D - Int J Environ Res Public Health (2015)

(a) Torso phantom and Qi-A13-Board (pinging mode) on the lateral wall; (b) AVID-Receiver close to the edge of the Qi-A13-Board. If the AVID-Receiver was moved further over the edge the connection was interrupted.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4483677&req=5

ijerph-12-05886-f005: (a) Torso phantom and Qi-A13-Board (pinging mode) on the lateral wall; (b) AVID-Receiver close to the edge of the Qi-A13-Board. If the AVID-Receiver was moved further over the edge the connection was interrupted.
Mentions: In the power transfer mode 10.8% of the performance limit was reached at maximum (cf.Table 2 LPA unipolar lead). Using a bipolar lead 7.5% of the performance limit was reached at maximum (RPA). The induced voltage in both implant-housing positions and with both lead types was higher at the atrium position than at the ventricle positions—20% to 67% for the bipolar lead and 60% to 88% for the unipolar lead. In Table 2 the induced worst-case voltages that occurred during the exposure with the Qi-A13-Board in power transfer mode are given. The highest voltages were induced when the AVID-Receiver and the Qi-A13-Board together were in the worst-case position. The AVID-Receiver was then close to the edge of the Qi-A13-Board (cf.Figure 5b). The worst-case position of the AVID-Receiver and the Qi-A13-Board on the torso phantom changed whenever the implantation site or the lead type was changed. In general it can be stated, that the worst-case position was on the lateral wall of the phantom at a height slightly above the tip of the lead (cf.Figure 5a).

Bottom Line: To do so the voltage induced in CIEDs by Qi A13 design magnetic fields were measured and compared with the performance limits set by ISO 14117.With the Qi‑A13‑Board in power transfer mode 10.8% and in pinging mode 45.7% (2.2% at 10 cm distance) of the performance limit were reached at maximum.In neither of the scrutinized cases, did the voltage induced by the Qi‑A13‑Board exceed the performance limits.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction (FEMU), Institute and Out-patient Clinic of Occupational Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstr 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany. seckler@femu.rwth-aachen.de.

ABSTRACT
Electromagnetic interference is a concern for people wearing cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The aim of this study was to assess the electromagnetic compatibility between CIEDs and the magnetic field of a common wireless charging technology. To do so the voltage induced in CIEDs by Qi A13 design magnetic fields were measured and compared with the performance limits set by ISO 14117. In order to carry this out a measuring circuit was developed which can be connected with unipolar or bipolar pacemaker leads. The measuring system was positioned at the four most common implantation sites in a torso phantom filled with physiological saline solution. The phantom was exposed by using Helmholtz coils from 5 µT to 27 µT with 111 kHz sine‑bursts or by using a Qi A13 design wireless charging board (Qi‑A13‑Board) in two operating modes "power transfer" and "pinging". With the Helmholtz coils the lowest magnetic flux density at which the performance limit was exceeded is 11 µT. With the Qi‑A13‑Board in power transfer mode 10.8% and in pinging mode 45.7% (2.2% at 10 cm distance) of the performance limit were reached at maximum. In neither of the scrutinized cases, did the voltage induced by the Qi‑A13‑Board exceed the performance limits.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus