Glotzer T V, Gordon M, Sparta M, Radoslovich G, Zimmerman J
Department of Medicine, Hackensack University Medical Center, New Jersey 07601, USA.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1998 Oct;21(10):1996-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1998.tb00021.x.
This case report is about two patients with two different types of ICDs who underwent electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) therapy. In one patient with an ICD that has epicardial screw-in bipolar sensing leads, electromagnetic interference (EMI) from the EMS device caused the delivery of an inappropriate ICD discharge. In a second patient with an ICD with endocardial true bipolar sensing, there was no evidence of EMI during the EMS therapy despite all of our attempts to reproduce it. The sensing circuits in the two different ICDs are compared.
本病例报告涉及两名接受电肌肉刺激（EMS）治疗的患者，他们植入了两种不同类型的植入式心律转复除颤器（ICD）。一名患者的ICD采用心外膜螺旋式双极感知导线，EMS设备产生的电磁干扰（EMI）导致ICD不适当放电。另一名患者的ICD采用心内膜真正双极感知，尽管我们尽了一切努力重现，但在EMS治疗期间未发现EMI迹象。对两种不同ICD的感知电路进行了比较。
