Mia Kassab, Alexander Johnson, Dania Kallas, Sonia Franciosi, Jeffrey Bone, Sakethram Saravu Vijayashankar, Shubhayan Sanatani
{"title":"游乐园游乐设施和心脏设备:心脏滴管还是设备停止器?","authors":"Mia Kassab, Alexander Johnson, Dania Kallas, Sonia Franciosi, Jeffrey Bone, Sakethram Saravu Vijayashankar, Shubhayan Sanatani","doi":"10.1111/jce.70087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are essential for managing cardiac conditions, but may malfunction due to magnetic fields > 10,000 mG. Roller coasters using linear induction motors (LIMs) generate magnetic fields, yet their potential for electromagnetic interference (EMI) with CIEDs is unclear. This study assesses magnetic field exposure on amusement park rides and examines healthcare provider recommendations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Magnetic field strength was measured using gaussmeters placed at shoulder and abdomen levels, representing pediatric CIED sites. Rides at an amusement park were tested at least four times, recording median and maximum magnetic field strengths per second throughout the ride. Magnetic field strengths were compared between rides with health advisory messages (HAMs) and without (NHAMs). A survey was distributed to the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) and the Canadian Council of Cardiovascular Nurses to assess healthcare provider recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 15 rides were sampled: 11 with HAMs and 4 with NHAM. The mean magnetic field strength was higher for HAM rides (2.9 mG) than NHAM rides (1.6 mG; p = 0.05). Maximum field strength was also greater in HAM rides (46.4 vs. 6.5 mG; p < 0.001), and in rides using LIMs (n = 2) compared to those using other mechanisms (211.7 vs. 7.8 mG; p < 0.001). Only 18.1% (n = 13) of healthcare providers relied on published resources for amusement park ride recommendations, while 58.3% (n = 42) advised patients to consider HAMs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Magnetic field strengths on all rides were clinically insignificant, posing minimal EMI risk for CIED patients. Further validation and standardized guidelines are needed to inform healthcare recommendations for patients with CIEDs.</p>","PeriodicalId":15178,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Amusement Park Rides and Cardiac Devices: Heart Dropper or Device Stopper?\",\"authors\":\"Mia Kassab, Alexander Johnson, Dania Kallas, Sonia Franciosi, Jeffrey Bone, Sakethram Saravu Vijayashankar, Shubhayan Sanatani\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jce.70087\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are essential for managing cardiac conditions, but may malfunction due to magnetic fields > 10,000 mG. Roller coasters using linear induction motors (LIMs) generate magnetic fields, yet their potential for electromagnetic interference (EMI) with CIEDs is unclear. This study assesses magnetic field exposure on amusement park rides and examines healthcare provider recommendations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Magnetic field strength was measured using gaussmeters placed at shoulder and abdomen levels, representing pediatric CIED sites. Rides at an amusement park were tested at least four times, recording median and maximum magnetic field strengths per second throughout the ride. Magnetic field strengths were compared between rides with health advisory messages (HAMs) and without (NHAMs). A survey was distributed to the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) and the Canadian Council of Cardiovascular Nurses to assess healthcare provider recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 15 rides were sampled: 11 with HAMs and 4 with NHAM. The mean magnetic field strength was higher for HAM rides (2.9 mG) than NHAM rides (1.6 mG; p = 0.05). Maximum field strength was also greater in HAM rides (46.4 vs. 6.5 mG; p < 0.001), and in rides using LIMs (n = 2) compared to those using other mechanisms (211.7 vs. 7.8 mG; p < 0.001). Only 18.1% (n = 13) of healthcare providers relied on published resources for amusement park ride recommendations, while 58.3% (n = 42) advised patients to consider HAMs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Magnetic field strengths on all rides were clinically insignificant, posing minimal EMI risk for CIED patients. Further validation and standardized guidelines are needed to inform healthcare recommendations for patients with CIEDs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.70087\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.70087","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:心脏植入式电子装置(CIEDs)是治疗心脏疾病必不可少的,但可能因磁场超过10,000 mG而发生故障。使用直线感应电机(LIMs)的过山车会产生磁场,但其与cied的电磁干扰(EMI)潜力尚不清楚。这项研究评估了游乐园游乐设施的磁场暴露,并检查了医疗保健提供者的建议。方法:使用高斯计在代表儿童CIED部位的肩部和腹部水平测量磁场强度。游乐园的游乐设施至少测试了四次,记录了整个游乐过程中每秒的磁场强度中值和最大值。研究人员比较了有健康咨询信息(ham)和没有健康咨询信息(nham)的骑行者之间的磁场强度。一项调查被分发给儿科和先天性电生理学会(pace)和加拿大心血管护士理事会,以评估医疗保健提供者的建议。结果:共抽样15次骑行,其中11次为ham, 4次为NHAM。HAM组的平均磁场强度(2.9 mG)高于NHAM组(1.6 mG, p = 0.05)。HAM游乐设施的最大磁场强度也更大(46.4 vs 6.5 mG; p)结论:所有游乐设施的磁场强度在临床上都不显著,对CIED患者造成最小的EMI风险。需要进一步的验证和标准化指南来为cied患者的医疗保健建议提供信息。
Amusement Park Rides and Cardiac Devices: Heart Dropper or Device Stopper?
Background: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are essential for managing cardiac conditions, but may malfunction due to magnetic fields > 10,000 mG. Roller coasters using linear induction motors (LIMs) generate magnetic fields, yet their potential for electromagnetic interference (EMI) with CIEDs is unclear. This study assesses magnetic field exposure on amusement park rides and examines healthcare provider recommendations.
Methods: Magnetic field strength was measured using gaussmeters placed at shoulder and abdomen levels, representing pediatric CIED sites. Rides at an amusement park were tested at least four times, recording median and maximum magnetic field strengths per second throughout the ride. Magnetic field strengths were compared between rides with health advisory messages (HAMs) and without (NHAMs). A survey was distributed to the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) and the Canadian Council of Cardiovascular Nurses to assess healthcare provider recommendations.
Results: A total of 15 rides were sampled: 11 with HAMs and 4 with NHAM. The mean magnetic field strength was higher for HAM rides (2.9 mG) than NHAM rides (1.6 mG; p = 0.05). Maximum field strength was also greater in HAM rides (46.4 vs. 6.5 mG; p < 0.001), and in rides using LIMs (n = 2) compared to those using other mechanisms (211.7 vs. 7.8 mG; p < 0.001). Only 18.1% (n = 13) of healthcare providers relied on published resources for amusement park ride recommendations, while 58.3% (n = 42) advised patients to consider HAMs.
Conclusion: Magnetic field strengths on all rides were clinically insignificant, posing minimal EMI risk for CIED patients. Further validation and standardized guidelines are needed to inform healthcare recommendations for patients with CIEDs.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (JCE) keeps its readership well informed of the latest developments in the study and management of arrhythmic disorders. Edited by Bradley P. Knight, M.D., and a distinguished international editorial board, JCE is the leading journal devoted to the study of the electrophysiology of the heart.