Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Theft”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 235 records · Page 13Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

Identity theft.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Dentists↗
PubMed2000

[Behavior of 20 pacemakers as patients pass through 2 models of theft-detection doors].

Episodic interference between the magnetic field of anti thief devices in stores (Electronic Article Surveillance, EAS) and pacemaker function have been reported, but no systematic in vivo study. 20 implanted pacemakers from ten different companies, 1 VVIR, 1 VDD and 18 DDD, were tested with two different EAS systems. #1 uses a 7.5 and 5 kHz field of 670 microTesla and #2 a 72.3 Hz magnetic field, of 1.10 microTesla. Under continuous ECG monitoring, patients had to walk through, and then stay between the doors while moving, and finally to lay against each wall. This was done with their usual pacemaker setting, and then set at their highest sensitivity in the unipolar atrial and ventricular mode. No abnormal PM behavior was observed with standard settings (V sensitivity 1.4 to 5 mV, A sensitivity 0.25 to 1 mV, bipolar (14) or unipolar (6). When programmed at the highest sensitivity, the magnetic field was detected by 5 models, but only with ventricular sensing set at less than 1.2 mV. moreover this only occurred in #2 EAS and not in #1. This resulted in short inhibitions < 1.2 s, and in one safety zone pacing. All occurred in devices conceived before 1993 (6/14) and none after (0/6). EAS devices should not inhibit implanted PM with standard settings, especially in recent models. Ventricular sensitivity should not be programmed in the unipolar mode at 1.2 mV or less.

Adult↗