Influence of electrical stimulation therapy on permanent pacemaker function
- 14 Downloads
Electrical stimulation therapy (EST) and transcutaneous electrical neuromuscular stimulation (TENS), a modality of EST, have become widely applied, accepted and effective methods for the treatment of musculoskeletal and other pain conditions. According to the rising number of permanent pacemaker (PM) wearers the number of potential candidates for EST with concomitant device implantation is growing. Contradictory recommendations exist regarding the application of EST or TENS on PM wearers.
The study was carried out to evaluate the impact of EST on PM function.
A full size model mimicking the electrical characteristics of the human body was used to evaluate the application of EST on permanent PM devices. Various configurations with respect to energy modality, position of the stimulation electrodes and PM device models were evaluated. Intracardiac PM electrogram tracings (iEGM) were analyzed for the interference of EST with PM function.
Unilateral EST application did not cause interference with PM function in any of the configurations (0%; n = 700). On the contrary, bilateral stimulation (350 configurations in total) caused either ventricular inhibition or switch to V00 back-up pacing due to electrical interference in 165 cases (47.1%) depending on the applied stimulation parameters.
The use of EST potentially interferes with PM therapy, especially if the electrodes are positioned bilaterally; however, unilateral EST application appeared to be safe in all tested configurations.
KeywordsTranscutaneous electrical neuromuscular stimulation Device interaction Chronic pain Ex-vivo Full-size model
Electrical stimulation therapy
Implantable cardioverter defibrillator
Intracardiac pacemaker electrogram tracing
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
This work was supported by the Association for the Promotion of Research in Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology, the Ludwig Boltzman Foundation for Cardiovascular Research and the Ludwig Boltzman Institute for Electrical Stimulation and Physical Rehabilitation.
This pece of research did not reveive any specific funding or grant. However the authors could use the facilities from the Association for the Promotion of Research in Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology, the Ludwig Boltzman Foundation for Cardiovascular Research and the Ludwig Boltzman Institute for Electrical Stimulation and Physical Rehabilitation to conduct their research. Consequently this appears to be no contradiction to the authors.
Conflict of interest
F. Egger reports personal fees from Medtronic outside the submitted work. M. Nürnberg reports personal fees from Medtronic, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, St. Jude Medical/Abbott and Sorin outside the submitted work. L. Fiedler reports personal fees from Boston Scientific and St. Jude Medical/Abbott outside the submitted work. C. Hofer, F.P. Hammerle, S. Löfler, R. Kriz, H. Kern and K. Huber have no conflicts of interest with respect to this publication.
- 2.Johnson MI, Paley CA, Howe TE, Sluka KA. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for acute pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;6:CD6142.Google Scholar
- 3.Raatikainen MJ, Arnar DO, Zeppenfeld K, Merino JL, Levya F, Hindriks G, et al. Statistics on the use of cardiac electronic devices and electrophysiological procedures in the European Society of Cardiology countries: 2014 report from the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace. 2015;17(Suppl 1):i1–i75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Glotzer TV, Gordon M, Sparta M, Radoslovich G, Zimmerman J. Electromagnetic interference from a muscle stimulation device causing discharge of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: epicardial bipolar and endocardial bipolar sensing circuits are compared. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1998;21(10):1996–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Crevenna R, Stix G, Pleiner J, Pezawas T, Schmidinger H, Quittan M, et al. Electromagnetic interference by transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation in patients with bipolar sensing implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a pilot safety study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2003;26(2 Pt 1):626–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar