AIM:To determine if there were any interactions between cardiac devices and small bowel capsules secondary to electromagnetic interference (EMI) in patients who have undergone small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE).METHODS:Authors conducted a chart review of 20 patients with a cardiac pacemaker (CP) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) who underwent continuous electrocardiographic monitoring during their SBCE from 2003-2008.authors searched for unexplained electrocardiogram (ECG) findings,changes in CP andICD set parameters,any abnormality in transmitted capsule data,and adverse clinical events.RESULTS:There were no adverse events or hemodynamically significant arrhythmias reported.CP and ICD set parameters were preserved.The majority of ECG abnormalities were also found in pre-or post-SBCE ECG tracings and the CP behavior during arrhythmias appeared appropriate.Two patients seemed to have episodes of undersensing by the CP.However,similar findings were documented in ECGs taken outside the time frame of the SBCE.One patient was observed to have a low signal encountered from the capsule resulting in lack of localization,but no images were lost.CONCLUSION:Capsule-induced EMI remains a possibility but is unlikely to be clinically important.CPinduced interference of SBCE is also possible,but is infrequent and does not result in loss of images transmitted by the capsule. A determination of 20 patients with cardiac pacemaker and small bowel capsules secondary to electromagnetic interference (EMI) in patients who had undergone small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE). METHODS: Authors conducted a chart review of 20 patients with a cardiac pacemaker (CP) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) who underwent continuous electrocardiographic monitoring during their SBCE from 2003-2008.authors searched for unexplained electrocardiogram (ECG) findings, changes in CP and ICD set parameters, any abnormality in transmitted capsule data, and, and adverse clinical events.RESULTS: There were no adverse events or hemodynamically significant arrhythmias reported. CP and ICD set parameters were preserved. the majority of ECG abnormalities were also found in pre-or post-SBCE ECG tracings and the CP behavior during arrhythmias. patients seemed to have episodes of undersensing by the CP. Still, similar findings were documented in ECGs take n outside the time frame of the SBCE. One patient was observed to have a low signal encountered from the capsule resulting in lack of localization, but no images were lost. CONCLUSION: Capsule-induced EMI remains a may but is unlikely to be clinically important .CPinduced interference of SBCE is also possible, but is infrequent and does not result in loss of images transmitted by the capsule.