Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T07:06:19.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference of electrocardiographic recordings by a mobile telephone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2007

Malcolm Brodlie ,
Daniel Robertson  and
Jonathan Wyllie
Malcolm Brodlie
Affiliation:
Neonatal Unit, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom
Daniel Robertson
Affiliation:
Neonatal Unit, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom
Jonathan Wyllie
Affiliation:
Neonatal Unit, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ownership of mobile telephones is now almost universal amongst the teenage population of the United Kingdom. Such telephones are a potential source of electromagnetic interference to medical equipment. We describe a case of troublesome interference with an electrocardiogram recording in a teenage patient whose mobile telephone was left switched on during a visit to hospital. This is likely to be a common reason for poor quality electrocardiographic recordings.

Keywords

Medical devicescardiologypaediatrics
Type
Brief Report
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 328 - 329
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Charlton A, Bates C. Decline in teenage smoking with rise in mobile phone ownership: hypothesis. BMJ 2000; 321: 1155.Google Scholar
MDA Device Bulletin DB9702. Department of Health, London, 1997.
Myerson SG, Mitchell AJR. Mobile phones in hospitals. BMJ 2003; 326: 460–461.Google Scholar
Tri JL, Hayes DL, Smith TT, Severson RP. Cellular phone interference with external cardiopulmonary monitoring devices. Mayo Clin Proc 2001; 76: 11–15.Google Scholar