Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Metal Allergy pp 273–283Cite as

Hypersensitivity to Cardiovascular Implants: Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Septal Occluders

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

The increasing application of medical devices in the management of various medical and surgical conditions and introduction of various implantable biomedical devices comes with concerns about biocompatibility and putative hypersensitivity. There is an increasing trend of referrals to allergists and dermatologists for pre- and postoperative assessment of patients with suspected allergies to components of medical devices. Hypersensitivity reactions to medical devices can present as localized dermatoses, systemic hypersensitivities, or device malfunction. This chapter provides an overview of the current evidence on hypersensitivity reactions associated with devices used in invasive electrophysiological procedures such as pacemakers. Another category of devices reviewed in this chapter is septal occluders and putative hypersensitivities associated with them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  1. Lyell A, Bain WH. Letter: Nickel allergy and valve replacement. Lancet. 1974;1(7854):408–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lyell A, Bain WH, Thomson RM. Repeated failure of nickel-containing prosthetic heart valves in a patient allergic to nickel. Lancet. 1978;2(8091):657–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Elves MW, Wilson JN, Scales JT, Kemp HB. Incidence of metal sensitivity in patients with total joint replacements. Br Med J. 1975;4(5993):376–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Evans EM, Freeman MA, Miller AJ, Vernon-Roberts B. Metal sensitivity as a cause of bone necrosis and loosening of the prosthesis in total joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1974;56-B(4):626–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Warshaw EM, Raju SI, Fowler JF Jr, et al. Positive patch test reactions in older individuals: retrospective analysis from the north american contact dermatitis group, 1994–2008. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;66(2):229–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Thyssen JP. Nickel and cobalt allergy before and after nickel regulation--evaluation of a public health intervention. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65(Suppl 1):1–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Caroe C, Andersen KE, Mortz CG. Fluctuations in the prevalence of nickel and cobalt allergy in eczema patients patch tested after implementation of the nickel regulation in denmark. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64(3):126–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Teixeira V, Coutinho I, Goncalo M. Allergic contact dermatitis to metals over a 20-year period in the centre of portugal: evaluation of the effects of the european directives. Acta Medica Port. 2014;27(3):295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jacob SE, Goldenberg A, Pelletier JL, Fonacier LS, Usatine R, Silverberg N. Nickel allergy and our children's health: a review of indexed cases and a view of future prevention. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32(6):779–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Senning A. Developments in cardiac surgery in stockholm during the mid and late 1950s. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1989;98(5 Pt 2):825–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mond HG, Proclemer A. The 11th world survey of cardiac pacing and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: calendar year 2009—a world society of arrhythmia's project. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2011;34(8):1013–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Honari G, Ellis SG, Wilkoff BL, Aronica MA, Svensson LG, Taylor JS. Hypersensitivity reactions associated with endovascular devices. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59(1):7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Medtronic. Sprint quattro®. http://www.medtronic.com/for-healthcare-professionals/products-therapies/cardiac-rhythm/implantable-cardioverter-defibrillators-icds/sprint-quattro/#tab4. Accessed 2 Nov 2016.

  14. DiFilippo FP, Brunken RC. Do implanted pacemaker leads and ICD leads cause metal-related artifact in cardiac PET/CT? J Nucl Med. 2005;46(3):436–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dionisio P. Advances in the technology of pacing. Rev Port Cardiol. 1999;18(3):289–98.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mirowski M. The automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: an overview. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1985;6(2):461–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Buchet S, Blanc D, Humbert P, et al. Pacemaker dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;26(1):46–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Weiss R. Pacemaker dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;21(5):343–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hayes DL, Loesl K. Pacemaker component allergy: case report and review of the literature. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2002;6(3):277–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Iguchi N, Kasanuki H, Matsuda N, Shoda M, Ohnishi S, Hosoda S. Contact sensitivity to polychloroparaxylene-coated cardiac pacemaker. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1997;20(2 Pt 1):372–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Skoet R, Tollund C, Bloch-Thomsen PE. Epoxy contact dermatitis due to pacemaker compounds. Cardiology. 2003;99(2):112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Andersen KE. Cutaneous reaction to an epoxy-coated pacemaker. Arch Dermatol. 1979;115(1):97–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Abdallah HI, Balsara RK, O'Riordan AC. Pacemaker contact sensitivity: clinical recognition and management. Ann Thorac Surg. 1994;57(4):1017–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Dery JP, Gilbert M, O'Hara G, et al. Pacemaker contact sensitivity: case report and review of the literature. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2002;25(5):863–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Brun R, Hunziker N. Pacemaker dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1980;6(3):212–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Raque C, Goldschmidt H. Dermatitis associated with an implanted cardiac pacemaker. Arch Dermatol. 1970;102(6):646–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wilkerson MG, Jordan WP Jr. Pressure dermatitis from an implanted pacemaker. Dermatol Clin. 1990;8(1):189–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Beutler BD, Cohen PR. Reticular telangiectatic erythema: case report and literature review. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2015;5(1):71–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Aneja S, Taylor JS, Billings SD, Honari G, Sood A. Post-implantation erythema in 3 patients and a review of reticular telangiectatic erythema. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64(5):280–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chua JD, Wilkoff BL, Lee I, Juratli N, Longworth DL, Gordon SM. Diagnosis and management of infections involving implantable electrophysiologic cardiac devices. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133(8):604–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Maushagen E, Reichle B, Simon H. Circumscribed erythema after cardiac pacemaker implantation. Z Kardiol. 1994;83(5):340–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kreft B, Thomas P, Steinhauser E, Vass A, Summer B, Wohlrab J. Erythema and swelling after im-plantation of a cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2015;140(19):1462–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Widmark A, Friberg EG. How 'do's' and 'dont's' can be of significant importance in radiation protection: a case report. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2011;147(1–2):99–101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Rath PC, Purohit BV, Agrawal B, et al. Pacemaker lead endocarditis due to trichosporon species. J Assoc Physicians India. 2015;63(4):66–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cutillas E, Ferrando FJ, Marti ME, Mateu A, Rausell N. Reticular variant of mid-dermal elastolysis after insertion of a pacemaker. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2010;35(5):498–500.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kottler D, Lefevre A, Balme B, Martin-Bourret V, Zaharia D, Skowron F. Mid-dermal elastolysis after insertion of a pacemaker. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2015;142(11):680–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Dy Chua J, Abdul-Karim A, Mawhorter S, et al. The role of swab and tissue culture in the diagnosis of implantable cardiac device infection. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28(12):1276–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Taguchi T, Maeba S, Sueda T. Prevention of pacemaker-associated contact dermatitis by polytetrafluoroethylene sheet and conduit coating of the pacemaker system. J Artif Organs. 2014;17(3):285–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ishii K, Kodani E, Miyamoto S, et al. Pacemaker contact dermatitis: the effective use of a polytetrafluoroethylene sheet. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006;29(11):1299–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hiranaka T, Nomura F, Kurozumi K. Pacemaker contact dermatitis treated by wrapping with a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sheet. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1992;8:335–8.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kono K, Hara K, Higashi T, et al. Pacemaker contact dermatitis treated with polytetrafluoroethylene sheet. J Arrhythmia. 2000;16:403–7.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tujita J, Nakamura K, Yasumoto S, Ueno Y. Pacemaker dermatitis: report of two cases. Nishinihon J Dermatol. 1996;58:200–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Vodiskar J, Schnoring H, Sachweh JS, Muhler E, Vazquez-Jimenez JF. Polytetrafluoroethylene-coated pacemaker leads as surgical management of contact allergy to silicone. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97(1):328–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Peters MS, Schroeter AL, van Hale HM, Broadbent JC. Pacemaker contact sensitivity. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;11(4):214–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Viraben R, Boulinguez S, Alba C. Granulomatous dermatitis after implantation of a titanium-containing pacemaker. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;33(6):437.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Yamauchi R, Morita A, Tsuji T. Pacemaker dermatitis from titanium. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42(1):52–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Freeman S. Allergic contact dermatitis to titanium in a pacemaker. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55(s1):41.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Dogan P, Inci S, Kuyumcu MS, Kus O. Contact dermatitis after implantable cardiac defibrillator implantation for ventricular tachycardia. Intractable Rare Dis Res. 2016;5(1):56–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Laugier P, Hunziger N, Orusco M, Brun B, Reiffers J, Posternak F. Dermite de contact par pacemaker. Dermatologica. 1975;150:219–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Tilsley DA, Rotstein H. Sensitivity caused by internal exposure to nickel, chrome and cobalt. Contact Dermatitis. 1980;6(3):175–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Landwehr AJ, van Ketel WG. Pompholyx after implantation of a nickel-containing pacemaker in a nickel-allergic patient. Contact Dermatitis. 1983;9(2):147.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Moini C, d'Alteroche A, Cosnay P, et al. Contact dermatitis following cardiac pacemaker implantation. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. 1996;89(2):253–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Romaguera C, Grimalt F. Pacemaker dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1981;7(6):333.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Verbov J. Pacemaker contact sensitivity. Contact Dermatitis. 1985;12(3):173.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Gimenez CJ. Dermites au pacemaker. Acta Dermatol. 1985;8:117–9.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Parker SE, Mai CT, Canfield MA, et al. Updated national birth prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the united states, 2004–2006. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2010;88(12):1008–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Snijder RJ, Luermans JG, de Heij AH, et al. Patent foramen ovale with atrial septal aneurysm is strongly associated with migraine with aura: a large observational study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5(12):e003771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Zier LS, Sievert H, Mahadevan VS. To close or not to close: contemporary indications for patent foramen ovale closure. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2016;14:1235–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Sun YP, Homma S. Patent foramen ovale and stroke. Circ J. 2016;80(8):1665–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Dalen JE, Alpert JS. Cryptogenic strokes and patent foramen ovales: What's the right treatment? Am J Med. 2016;129(11):1159–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Mills NL, King TD. Nonoperative closure of left-to-right shunts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1976;72(3):371–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Rashkind WJ. Transcatheter treatment of congenital heart disease. Circulation. 1983;67(4):711–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Rome JJ, Keane JF, Perry SB, Spevak PJ, Lock JE. Double-umbrella closure of atrial defects. Initial clinical applications. Circulation. 1990;82(3):751–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Babic UU, Grujicic S, Popovic Z, Djurisic Z, Vucinic M, Pejcic P. Double-umbrella device for transvenous closure of patent ductus arteriosus and atrial septal defect: first experience. J Interv Cardiol. 1991;4(4):283–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Das GS, Voss G, Jarvis G, Wyche K, Gunther R, Wilson RF. Experimental atrial septal defect closure with a new, transcatheter, self-centering device. Circulation. 1993;88(4 Pt 1):1754–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Sharafuddin MJ, Gu X, Titus JL, Urness M, Cervera-Ceballos JJ, Amplatz K. Transvenous closure of secundum atrial septal defects: preliminary results with a new self-expanding nitinol prosthesis in a swine model. Circulation. 1997;95(8):2162–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Bridges ND, Hellenbrand W, Latson L, Filiano J, Newburger JW, Lock JE. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale after presumed paradoxical embolism. Circulation. 1992;86(6):1902–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Schwetz BA. From the food and drug administration. JAMA. 2002;287(5):578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. FDA. AMPLATZER PFO occluder. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm526921.htm. Accessed 1 Nov 2016.

  70. FDA. HELEX septal occluder. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm077730.htm. Accessed 1 Nov 2016.

  71. FDA Document. CardioSEALÒ septal occlusion system; summary of safety and effectiveness data. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf/H990004b.pdf. Updated 2001. Accessed 2 Oct 20016.

  72. FDA. Premarket approval (PMA). http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/nncfm?start_search=1&applicant=&tradename=&productcode=&pmanumber=p050006&supplementnumber=&advisorycommittee=&docketnumber=&supplementtype=&expeditedreview=&ivdproducts=off&combinationproducts=off&decisiondatefrom=&decisiondateto=&noticedatefrom=&noticedateto=&PAGENUM=25. Accessed 20 Feb 2016.

  73. Tang B, Su F, Sun X, Wu Q, Xing Q, Li S. Recent development of transcatheter closure of atrial septal defect and patent foramen ovale with occluders. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2016; doi:10.1002/jbm.b.33831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Verma SK, Tobis JM. Explantation of patent foramen ovale closure devices: a multicenter survey. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(5):579–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Verma DR, Khan MF, Tandar A, et al. Nickel elution properties of contemporary interatrial shunt closure devices. J Invasive Cardiol. 2015;27(2):99–104.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Ries MW, Kampmann C, Rupprecht HJ, Hintereder G, Hafner G, Meyer J. Nickel release after implantation of the amplatzer occluder. Am Heart J. 2003;145(4):737–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Burian M, Neumann T, Weber M, et al. Nickel release, a possible indicator for the duration of antiplatelet treatment, from a nickel cardiac device in vivo: a study in patients with atrial septal defects implanted with an amplatzer occluder. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2006;44(3):107–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Uguz E, Erdogan K, Sener E. Explantation of an atrial septal occluder device in a patient with nickel hypersensitivity. Anadolu Kardiyol Derg. 2014;14(4):402–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Fukahara K, Minami K, Reiss N, Fassbender D, Koerfer R. Systemic allergic reaction to the percutaneous patent foramen ovale occluder. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;125(1):213–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Dasika UK, Kanter KR, Vincent R. Nickel allergy to the percutaneous patent foramen ovale occluder and subsequent systemic nickel allergy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126(6):2112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Lai DW, Saver JL, Araujo JA, Reidl M, Tobis J. Pericarditis associated with nickel hypersensitivity to the amplatzer occluder device: a case report. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005;66(3):424–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Prestipino F, Pragliola C, Lusini M, Chello M. Nickel allergy induced systemic reaction to an intracardiac amplatzer device. J Card Surg. 2014;29(3):349–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Belohlavek J, Belohlavkova S, Hlubocky J, Mrazek V, Linhart A, Podzimek S. Severe allergic dermatitis after closure of foramen ovale with amplatzer occluder. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96(3):e57–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Rabkin DG, Whitehead KJ, Michaels AD, Powell DL, Karwande SV. Unusual presentation of nickel allergy requiring explantation of an amplatzer atrial septal occluder device. Clin Cardiol. 2009;32(8):E55–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Jain M, Singh S, Cadeiras M. A case of nitinol allergy causing pericardial tamponade. J Invasive Cardiol. 2013;25(9):E180–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Meier B. Nickel allergy and device closure of the patent foramen ovale, now that we were told should we care? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;74(4):652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Kim HJ, Shin JU, Lee J, et al. Positive reactions to nickel on a patch test do not predict clinical outcome of nickel alloy-based atrial septal defect occluder implantation. Dermatology. 2015;230(2):184–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Rigatelli G, Cardaioli P, Giordan M, et al. Nickel allergy in interatrial shunt device-based closure patients. Congenit Heart Dis. 2007;2(6):416–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Niki Y, Matsumoto H, Otani T, et al. Screening for symptomatic metal sensitivity: a prospective study of 92 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Biomaterials. 2005;26(9):1019–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Carlsson A, Moller H. Implantation of orthopaedic devices in patients with metal allergy. Acta Derm Venereol. 1989;69(1):62–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stanford University School of Medicine, Redwood City, CA, USA

    Golara Honari

  2. Cardiac Electrophysiologist, Sulpizio Cardiovascular Center, Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of California San Diego, 9444 Medical Center Dr MC 7411, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA

    Farshad Raissi

Authors
  1. Golara Honari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farshad Raissi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Golara Honari .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Redwood City, CA, USA

    Jennifer K Chen

  2. Department of Dermatology and Allergy Herlev and Gentofte Hospital University of Copenhagen, Hellerup, Denmark

    Jacob P. Thyssen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Honari, G., Raissi, F. (2018). Hypersensitivity to Cardiovascular Implants: Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Septal Occluders. In: Chen, J., Thyssen, J. (eds) Metal Allergy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58503-1_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58503-1_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58502-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58503-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation