The Impact of Electromagnetic Interference from Charging All-electric Vehicles on Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Performance

Abdul Wase; Umbreen Azmat Hussain; Theresa Ratajczak; Thein Tun Aung; Omair Ali; Ronald J Markert

doi:10.19102/icrm.2023.14102

The Impact of Electromagnetic Interference from Charging All-electric Vehicles on Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Performance

J Innov Card Rhythm Manag. 2023 Oct 15;14(10):5600-5604. doi: 10.19102/icrm.2023.14102. eCollection 2023 Oct.

Authors

Abdul Wase¹, Umbreen Azmat Hussain², Theresa Ratajczak³, Thein Tun Aung⁴, Omair Ali⁵, Ronald J Markert⁶

Affiliations

¹ Department of Internal Medicine, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA.
² Department of Medicine, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center/Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
³ The Christ Hospital Heart & Vascular Institute, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
⁴ Miami Valley Hospital, Dayton, OH, USA.
⁵ MultiCare Medical Associates, Tacoma, WA, USA.
⁶ Department of Internal Medicine and Neurology, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, OH, USA.

Abstract

Electric vehicles (EVs) are growing in popularity and in general use. The effect of electromagnetic interference (EMI) caused by supercharging all-electric vehicles on implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) function has not been studied. The objective of this study was to determine the extent of the effect of EMI from charging Tesla all-electric vehicles (Tesla, Inc., Austin, TX, USA) on cardiac implantable electronic device function. A proof-of-concept study was performed to explore the potential effect of EMI from Tesla vehicles while charging the battery using a 220-V wall charger and a 480-V Supercharger. Tesla Model S and Model X vehicles were used for this study. We enrolled 34 patients with stable ICD function for the initial phase using the standard wall charger, followed by an additional 35 patients for the second phase using the Supercharger. Tracings were obtained at nominal and highest sensitivity settings while patients sat in the driver's seat, passenger seat, back seats, and facing the charging port. In each position, the device and the patient were monitored in real time by a certified technician for any inappropriate sensing and/or delivery of therapies. A medical magnet was also available on site. Emergency medical services and physician supervision were available at all times, and patients were contacted the following day to ensure their well-being. No device interactions were identified at both the nominal and highest sensitivity settings of each ICD during exposure to vehicle charging using a Tesla 220-V wall charger and a 480-V Supercharger at any of the five positions in and around each vehicle. Interaction was defined as oversensing, undersensing, mode switch, or upper rate tracking behavior. There was also no damage to any ICD, and no inappropriate shocks were administered to any patient. In conclusion, transvenous ICD function is not interrupted by EMI transmitted while charging Tesla vehicles using either the 220-V wall charger or the 480-V Supercharger.

Keywords: Electric vehicles; electromagnetic interference; implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.