Researchers at the Instituto Tecnológico de la Energía (Technological Institute of Energy, ITE) are developing a bio-battery that uses blood glucose to produce energy. Such a battery would cut down on the number of surgical interventions a pacemaker user must endure.
Current batteries are hard-wearing and work well for implants that do not require much energy. However, when they run out, the patient must undergo surgery to replace them. Even devices that do not use much electricity, like pacemakers, have a limited useful life given this dependence on batteries.
The challenge of research in this area lies in developing electrodes made from materials that are compatibile with the human body and able to oxidise blood glucose and convert it into fuel.
Using glucose to fuel implants is not bad, but using lipids would make the inventor a trillionaire.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @08:27AM
Easy:
1. burn lipids
2. boil water
3. let the steam drive a turbine generator
4. use an electric coil to power the implant by induction
...
6. Now, where are my trillions?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @09:38AM
Exactly where is this implanted?
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:01AM
Pacemakers are usually implanted underneath the Pectoralis major muscle on the right side about an inch below the clavicle (as the electrodes use the subclavian vein to reach the heart).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:56PM
Nope. Above the muscle, under the skin.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday May 03 2016, @06:44PM
Go ahead and argue [nih.gov]. Citation needed. By the way, I have a pacemaker. Under my pectoral muscle.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Gravis on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:09AM
in your flaming steam filled chest.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:09PM
Actually, there is a very simple way to power the glucose-powered pacemaker with lipids: dieting. No need to invent anything: when the body needs glucose and can't get it through food, it converts stored fat back into glucose.
By the way, the diet industry is already a multi-billion dollar industry, and there are already many fat cats selling all manners of lipid-to-glucose methods and paraphernalia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @08:47AM
This won't end well for biologicals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @09:41AM
If it works for my mouse, why can't it work for a pacemaker?
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:56AM
That's exactly what I was thinking. It would seem silly not to use wireless charging.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:22PM
How is wireless charging, a thing you have to explicitly think of, better than using glucose that's available anyway and which your body will remember you to refill if it goes low?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday May 03 2016, @04:29PM
It's not better, it's just been avail;able for a very long time is also a way of eliminating repeated surgeries.
(Score: 2) by PocketSizeSUn on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:39PM
Already been done.
Most rechargeable devices of that sort are larger and the batteries don't last as long so they are used for non-life threatening applications where more battery is used in shorter periods of time (where the application calls for frequent or continuous pulsing).
Considering that current pacemakers last for 7 (size of 3 quarters) to 21 (about double the volume) years in the nominal case the monthly sized rechargeable version doesn't have much demand.
Also the surgery to replace a pacemaker because the battery is near depletion isn't a major surgery. The pacemaker sits just under the skin and swapping old for new requires a small incision.
There are lots of other drawbacks to rechargeable implanted devices including the rate of charge ... we can only pass so much energy through flesh before it gets cooked, depth of implant, discharge rates. A rechargeable battery will deplete in say 6 months even without use making shelf life problematic as well as everything else.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:14AM
Other people have been working on electrochemical cells that would use glucose to power implants. Problems have included insufficient voltage, insufficient power, and fouling.
https://prezi.com/qno3lfivjamj/glucose-fuel-cell-application-for-long-term-pacemaker-power-supply/ [prezi.com]
http://www.fastcompany.com/1649666/body-fluid-powered-fuel-cell-could-turn-pacemaker-patients-steve-austin [fastcompany.com]
http://www.economist.com/node/21557718 [economist.com]
http://news.discovery.com/tech/glucose-biofuel-cells-electricity-pacemakers.htm [discovery.com]
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday May 07 2016, @07:58PM
Fouling was my first concern. A person may have a pacemaker due to complications arising from high cholesterol.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by PocketSizeSUn on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:48PM
I have no doubt that implanted devices will eventually reach a level of input energy can be derived organically from the host.
However coming up with a permanent probe (such as one using glucose) is probably never going to work, at least not in the permanent fashion that is implied by the summary. These tend to require some sort of chemical reaction that depletes or coats the probe until it is no longer effective.
The more promising, although further out path, is to harvest from the bodies existing electrochemical process (you know the chemical process that already triggers an electrical pulse that causes the heart muscle to contract). Now that would really cool.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday May 03 2016, @09:10PM
So you want the device to run on ATP and contain it's own mitochondria?
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by chewbacon on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:11PM
I'm a cardiac electrophysiology specialist and I've seen hundreds of generator changes. One advantage is the patient gets an upgrade to what could be newer and better practices. There is actually less risk just changing the generator than in the initial implant as the physician may not have to do any work with the leads.
My suggestion, however, for batteries is wireless charging. I don't know much about it, but why not put a wand over it and wirelessly recharge the device? We could always go back to nuclear power sources.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:39PM
The life of the implant would probably be less. Instead of just one big battery of a certain size, you need to now have some real estate taken up by the wireless charging antenna, charging circuit, and more complicated monitoring circuit. Not to mention that the chemistry of rechargeable batteries already hold less for a given size compared to non-rechargeable and have a finite number of cycles.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday May 03 2016, @08:45PM
"In 1965, scientists developed a rechargeable pacemaker that could last up to three months without being charged [...]" -- http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/who-killed-the-rechargeable-pacemaker/283365/ [theatlantic.com]