Cargando…

Interference by new-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to assess and classify incidents of electromagnetic interference (EMI) by second-generation and third-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment. METHODS: EMI was assessed with two General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) signals (900 MHz, 2 W, two...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Lieshout, Erik Jan, van der Veer, Sabine N, Hensbroek, Reinout, Korevaar, Johanna C, Vroom, Margreeth B, Schultz, Marcus J
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556741/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17822524
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc6115
_version_ 1782159593048113152
author van Lieshout, Erik Jan
van der Veer, Sabine N
Hensbroek, Reinout
Korevaar, Johanna C
Vroom, Margreeth B
Schultz, Marcus J
author_facet van Lieshout, Erik Jan
van der Veer, Sabine N
Hensbroek, Reinout
Korevaar, Johanna C
Vroom, Margreeth B
Schultz, Marcus J
author_sort van Lieshout, Erik Jan
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to assess and classify incidents of electromagnetic interference (EMI) by second-generation and third-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment. METHODS: EMI was assessed with two General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) signals (900 MHz, 2 W, two different time-slot occupations) and one Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) signal (1,947.2 MHz, 0.2 W), corresponding to maximal transmit performance of mobile phones in daily practice, generated under controlled conditions in the proximity of 61 medical devices. Incidents of EMI were classified in accordance with an adjusted critical care event scale. RESULTS: A total of 61 medical devices in 17 categories (27 different manufacturers) were tested and demonstrated 48 incidents in 26 devices (43%); 16 (33%) were classified as hazardous, 20 (42%) as significant and 12 (25%) as light. The GPRS-1 signal induced the most EMI incidents (41%), the GRPS-2 signal induced fewer (25%) and the UMTS signal induced the least (13%; P < 0.001). The median distance between antenna and medical device for EMI incidents was 3 cm (range 0.1 to 500 cm). One hazardous incident occurred beyond 100 cm (in a ventilator with GRPS-1 signal at 300 cm). CONCLUSION: Critical care equipment is vulnerable to EMI by new-generation wireless telecommunication technologies with median distances of about 3 cm. The policy to keep mobile phones '1 meter' from the critical care bedside in combination with easily accessed areas of unrestricted use still seems warranted.
format Text
id pubmed-2556741
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-25567412008-10-01 Interference by new-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment van Lieshout, Erik Jan van der Veer, Sabine N Hensbroek, Reinout Korevaar, Johanna C Vroom, Margreeth B Schultz, Marcus J Crit Care Research INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to assess and classify incidents of electromagnetic interference (EMI) by second-generation and third-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment. METHODS: EMI was assessed with two General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) signals (900 MHz, 2 W, two different time-slot occupations) and one Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) signal (1,947.2 MHz, 0.2 W), corresponding to maximal transmit performance of mobile phones in daily practice, generated under controlled conditions in the proximity of 61 medical devices. Incidents of EMI were classified in accordance with an adjusted critical care event scale. RESULTS: A total of 61 medical devices in 17 categories (27 different manufacturers) were tested and demonstrated 48 incidents in 26 devices (43%); 16 (33%) were classified as hazardous, 20 (42%) as significant and 12 (25%) as light. The GPRS-1 signal induced the most EMI incidents (41%), the GRPS-2 signal induced fewer (25%) and the UMTS signal induced the least (13%; P < 0.001). The median distance between antenna and medical device for EMI incidents was 3 cm (range 0.1 to 500 cm). One hazardous incident occurred beyond 100 cm (in a ventilator with GRPS-1 signal at 300 cm). CONCLUSION: Critical care equipment is vulnerable to EMI by new-generation wireless telecommunication technologies with median distances of about 3 cm. The policy to keep mobile phones '1 meter' from the critical care bedside in combination with easily accessed areas of unrestricted use still seems warranted. BioMed Central 2007 2007-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC2556741/ /pubmed/17822524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc6115 Text en Copyright © 2007 van Lieshout et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
van Lieshout, Erik Jan
van der Veer, Sabine N
Hensbroek, Reinout
Korevaar, Johanna C
Vroom, Margreeth B
Schultz, Marcus J
Interference by new-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment
title Interference by new-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment
title_full Interference by new-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment
title_fullStr Interference by new-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment
title_full_unstemmed Interference by new-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment
title_short Interference by new-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment
title_sort interference by new-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556741/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17822524
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc6115
work_keys_str_mv AT vanlieshouterikjan interferencebynewgenerationmobilephonesoncriticalcaremedicalequipment
AT vanderveersabinen interferencebynewgenerationmobilephonesoncriticalcaremedicalequipment
AT hensbroekreinout interferencebynewgenerationmobilephonesoncriticalcaremedicalequipment
AT korevaarjohannac interferencebynewgenerationmobilephonesoncriticalcaremedicalequipment
AT vroommargreethb interferencebynewgenerationmobilephonesoncriticalcaremedicalequipment
AT schultzmarcusj interferencebynewgenerationmobilephonesoncriticalcaremedicalequipment