Hypersensitivity reactions associated with endovascular devices

Combined etiology of anaphylactic cardiogenic shock: amiodarone, epinephrine, cardioverter defibrillator, left ventricular assist devices and the Kounis syndrome

Anaphylactic shock is a life-threatening condition which needs detailed and mediculous clinical assessment and thoughtful treatment. Several causes can join forces in order to degranulate mast cells. Amiodarone which is an iodine-containing highly lipophilic benzofuran can induce allergic reactions and anaphylactic shock in sensitized patients. Epinephrine is a life saving drug, but in sulfite allergic patients it should be given with caution due its metabisulfite preservative. Metals covering cardiac defibrillators and pacemakers can act as antigens attached to serum proteins and induce allergic reactions. In anaphylactic shock, myocardial involvement due to vasospasm-induced coronary blood flow reduction manifesting as Kounis syndrome should be always considered. Clinically, combined treatment targeting the primary cause of anaphylaxis together with protection of cardiac tissue seems to be of paramount importance.

Dermatitis caused by metal allergy after coil embolization for unruptured cerebral aneurysm

We report a rare case of metal-induced dermatitis after coil embolization for cerebral aneurysm. A 51-year-old woman experienced a rash around the lips and neck 3 weeks after coil embolization. Judging from the clinical course and results of several patch tests, platinum coils were considered to have induced the dermatitis. Symptoms were relieved with administration of oral steroids. This represents the first report of metal-induced dermatitis after neuroendovascular treatment. The possibility of metal allergy was difficult to suspect preoperatively. However, early evaluation and referral are important when skin symptoms are observed postoperatively.

Dermatitis caused by metal allergy after coil embolization for unruptured cerebral aneurysm

We report a rare case of metal-induced dermatitis after coil embolization for cerebral aneurysm. A 51-year-old woman experienced a rash around the lips and neck 3 weeks after coil embolization. Judging from the clinical course and results of several patch tests, platinum coils were considered to have induced the dermatitis. Symptoms were relieved with administration of oral steroids. This represents the first report of metal-induced dermatitis after neuroendovascular treatment. The possibility of metal allergy was difficult to suspect preoperatively. However, early evaluation and referral are important when skin symptoms are observed postoperatively.

A Rare Case of Recurrent Pacemaker Allergic Reaction

Allergic reactions to pacemaker device components are uncommon. However, when they occur, they usually mimic pacemaker infection, which results in multiple device replacements and increased morbidity burden. Here we present a 40-year-old female with pacemaker insertion due to complete heart block and who had multiple device replacements because of allergic sensitivity to various pacemaker component-encasing materials, confirmed by allergic testing to these materials. She had complete resolution of her symptoms after replacement with gold-plated device, to which she was not allergic.

Metal hypersensitivity reactions to implants: opinions and practices of patch testing dermatologists

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous metal hypersensitivity reactions (MHR) are common but rare with implanted devices.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to characterize the opinions of dermatologists who are actively evaluating/advising patients with MHR.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to all individuals who attended the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) 2012 and the American Contact Dermatitis Society 2013 meetings.

RESULTS

A total of 119 individuals responded with a participation rates of 10% (ESCD) and 32% (American Contact Dermatitis Society). Ninety-six percent of the respondents evaluate MHR and 91% were attending physicians. Orthopedic and dental devices were common problems compared with cardiovascular devices. Patch testing is the top choice for evaluating MHR. Lymphocyte transformation and intradermal tests are rarely used. Eighty-two percent of the respondents evaluate plastic/glue components in symptomatic patients postimplant. Most dermatologists use a tray specifically for joint allergy or a history-based custom array of allergens. Those patients with a strong clinical history of metal allergy should be evaluated before metal implantation (54%), whereas others forgo evaluation and recommend a titanium implant based on history alone (38%). Diagnostic criteria for postimplant reactions were evaluated. Eight percent of the respondents felt that no evaluation was necessary, with ESCD respondents being significantly more likely to not recommend evaluation (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Metal hypersensitivity reactions consultation requests are common for preimplant and postimplant issues. Patch testing is currently the best test for MHR.

Systemic contact dermatitis and allergy to biomedical devices

Systemic contact dermatitis (SCD) refers to a skin condition where an individual who is cutaneously sensitized to an allergen will subsequently react to that same allergen or a cross-reacting allergen via the systemic route. It occurs to allergens including metals, medications, and foods. There has been recent interest in metal allergy as it relates to the implantation of devices such as orthopedic, dental, cardiac, and gynecologic implants. This review will briefly address all causes of systemic contact dermatitis with a special and expanded focus on metal implant allergy. We present literature on SCD to various metal biomedical devices, patch testing for diagnosis of metal allergy pre and post implantation and treatment.

Detailed analysis of allergic cutaneous reactions to spinal cord stimulator devices

The use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices to treat chronic, refractory neuropathic pain continues to expand in application. While device-related complications have been well described, inflammatory reactions to the components of these devices remain underreported. In contrast, hypersensitivity reactions associated with other implanted therapies, such as endovascular and cardiac rhythm devices, have been detailed. The purpose of this case series is to describe the clinical presentation and course of inflammatory reactions as well as the histology of these reactions. All patients required removal of the entire device after developing inflammatory reactions over a time course of 1-3 months. Two patients developed a foreign body reaction in the lead insertion wound as well as at the implantable pulse generator site, with histology positive for giant cells. One patient developed an inflammatory dermatitis on the flank and abdomen that resolved with topical hydrocortisone. "In vivo" testing with a lead extension fragment placed in the buttock resulted in a negative reaction followed by successful reimplantation of an SCS device. Inflammatory reactions to SCS devices can manifest as contact dermatitis, granuloma formation, or foreign body reactions with giant cell formation. Tissue diagnosis is essential, and is helpful to differentiate an inflammatory reaction from infection. The role of skin patch testing for 96 hours may not be suited to detect inflammatory giant cell reactions that manifest several weeks post implantation.

Relation of Nickel Allergy with in-Stent Restenosis in Patients Treated with Cobalt Chromium Stents

Background

In-stent restenosis (ISR) is the major limitation of percutaneous coronary stenting procedure. The elements like nickel, chromate and molybdenum are known to cause contact allergy. Hypersensitivity reaction, against these metal ions, may be one of the reasons of ISR. Cobalt chromium coronary stents, which are increasingly being used in percutaneous coronary interventions, have more nickel amount than the stainless steel stents.

Objective

We aimed to investigate the association between nickel hypersensitivity reaction and ISR in patients treated with cobalt chromium coronary stents.

Methods

Epicutaneous patch tests for nickel were applied to 31 patients who had undergone elective cobalt chromium coronary stent implantation and had ISR in control angiogram. Thirty patients, without ISR, were included as the control group. Patch test results and other clinical variables were compared.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference of the mean age, sex, body mass index, rate of hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, hypertension and smoking between the patients with and without ISR. All other lesion characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. According to the patch test results, 7 patients had nickel contact allergy. All of these patients were in the ISR group, which was statistically significant (p<0.006).

Conclusion

Patients treated with cobalt chromium coronary stents and had ISR were found to have significantly more nickel allergy than the control group. Nickel allergy may play role in restenosis pathophysiology.

Outcomes After Coronary Stent Implantation in Patients With Metal Allergy

Background—

Clinical outcomes after stent placement in patients with a history of metal allergy remain incompletely understood. We performed a single-center retrospective study to evaluate such outcomes.

Methods and Results—

Twenty-nine allergic patients who underwent coronary stent implantation were compared with a nonallergic group (n=250) matched for demographics and a propensity score for allergy to metal. Hypersensitivity to nickel was reported in 26 of 29 and chromium in 9 of 29. Patch testing performed in 11 of 29 patients was positive in all. Comparing allergy versus control subjects, there were no differences in number of segments treated (1.4±0.7 versus 1.5±0.7), stents placed (1.7±1.1 versus 1.6±0.9), and frequency of drug-eluting stent usage (52% versus 60%). In-hospital death (0% versus 0%), myocardial infarction (MI, 4% versus 3%, P =0.27), and 30-day death (3% versus 0%, P =0.53) and MI (3% versus 4%, P =0.71) were statistically similar. There were no differences in 4-year death (12% versus 13%), target lesion revascularization (TLR, 13 versus 17%, P =0.54), or death/MI/TLR (24% versus 34%, P =0.20). Clinically driven repeat angiography in 12 of 29 allergy patients revealed binary restenosis rates of 27% in bare metal stents and 0% in drug-eluting stents, with mean diameter in-stent restenosis of 36% and 8%, respectively. There was no change in circulating eosinophil and lymphocyte counts after stenting in the allergy group (0.19–0.20, P =0.67, and 1.90–1.79, P =0.59, respectively).

Conclusions—

A history of metal allergy was not associated with adverse early or late outcomes in this single-center study.

Iatrogenic skin injury in hospitalized patients

Iatrogenic skin injuries in hospitalized patients range from drug-related complications to those related to procedures. Common drug complications include drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), linear immunoglobulin (Ig) A bullous dermatosis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis. Contact dermatitis can result from surgical preparations of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine, medical adhesives, topical postsurgical ointments, most commonly neomycin and bacitracin, and internal prostheses, including coronary stents, pacemakers, and metal joints. Complications arising from procedures include thrombosis caused by placement of peripherally inserted central catheters, pyoderma gangrenosum from sites of dermal trauma, and anetoderma of prematurity from cutaneous monitoring devices in neonates. Calcinosis cutis and decubitus ulcers are also hospital problems.

Hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants - diagnostic algorithm and suggested patch test series for clinical use

Cutaneous and systemic hypersensitivity reactions to implanted metals are challenging to evaluate and treat. Although they are uncommon, they do exist, and require appropriate and complete evaluation. This review summarizes the evidence regarding evaluation tools, especially patch and lymphocyte transformation tests, for hypersensitivity reactions to implanted metal devices. Patch test evaluation is the gold standard for metal hypersensitivity, although the results may be subjective. Regarding pre-implant testing, those patients with a reported history of metal dermatitis should be evaluated by patch testing. Those without a history of dermatitis should not be tested unless considerable concern exists. Regarding post-implant testing, a subset of patients with metal hypersensitivity may develop cutaneous or systemic reactions to implanted metals following implant. For symptomatic patients, a diagnostic algorithm to guide the selection of screening allergen series for patch testing is provided. At a minimum, an extended baseline screening series and metal screening is necessary. Static and dynamic orthopaedic implants, intravascular stent devices, implanted defibrillators and dental and gynaecological devices are considered. Basic management suggestions are provided. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive reference for use by those evaluating suspected cutaneous and systemic metal hypersensitivity reactions.

Dermatitis in patients undergoing the Nuss procedure for correction of pectus excavatum

BACKGROUND

The Nuss procedure was introduced in 1987 for the correction of pectus excavatum. In this procedure, a stainless steel bar is placed underneath the sternum.

OBJECTIVES

To report cutaneous reactions associated with Nuss bar placement.

METHODS

Over a period of 30 months, 50 patients underwent the Nuss procedure. The study population was limited to those who developed clinically significant cutaneous reactions postoperatively. Patient information was obtained from electronic medical records. All patients had been patch tested preoperatively with stainless steel discs supplied by the bar manufacturer. When performed, expanded patch testing was carried out in accordance with the North American Contact Dermatitis Group guidelines.

RESULTS

Postoperatively, 3 patients developed areas of protuberant granulation tissue at one or more incision sites. One patient developed localized oedema, dermatitis, and lymphadenopathy. Two of these 4 patients underwent further patch testing. Of these 2, 1 with dermatitis had a positive reaction to nickel and the other, with granulation tissue, tested negative for metal allergy.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite clinical evidence of cutaneous reactions or putative allergy, no patient required early removal of the bar(s). Cutaneous testing with stainless steel discs supplied by the bar manufacturer does not provide accurate screening for allergy to the implant used in the Nuss procedure.

Cellular phone and cellular phone accessory dermatitis due to nickel allergy: report of five cases

Cellular phone dermatitis, also known as mobile phone dermatitis, is a recently recognized condition due to either nickel or chromate allergy. Cellular phone dermatitis has most often been reported in young adults and less commonly in adolescents. We describe five adolescents whose cellular phone dermatitis was caused by nickel allergy.

Cutaneous and systemic hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants

Cutaneous reactions to metal implants, orthopedic or otherwise, are well documented in the literature. The first case of a dermatitis reaction over a stainless steel fracture plate was described in 1966. Most skin reactions are eczematous and allergic in nature, although urticarial, bullous, and vasculitic eruptions may occur. Also, more complex immune reactions may develop around the implants, resulting in pain, inflammation, and loosening. Nickel, cobalt, and chromium are the three most common metals that elicit both cutaneous and extracutaneous allergic reactions from chronic internal exposure. However, other metal ions as well as bone cement components can cause such hypersensitivity reactions. To complicate things, patients may also develop delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions to metals (ie, in-stent restenosis, prosthesis loosening, inflammation, pain, or allergic contact dermatitis) following the insertion of intravascular stents, dental implants, cardiac pacemakers, or implanted gynecologic devices. Despite repeated attempts by researchers and clinicians to further understand this difficult area of medicine, the association between metal sensitivity and cutaneous allergic reactions remains to be fully understood. This review provides an update of the current knowledge in this field and should be valuable to health care providers who manage patients with conditions related to this field.

Pragmatic approach to the clinical work-up of patients with putative allergic disease to metallic orthopaedic implants before and after surgery

Allergic complications following insertion of metallic orthopaedic implants include allergic dermatitis reactions but also extracutaneous complications. As metal-allergic patients and/or surgeons may ask dermatologists and allergologists for advice prior to planned orthopaedic implant surgery, and as surgeons may refer patients with complications following total joint arthroplasty for diagnostic work-up, there is a continuous need for updated guidelines. This review presents published evidence for patch testing prior to surgery and proposes tentative diagnostic criteria which clinicians can rely on in the work-up of patients with putative allergic complications following surgery. Few studies have investigated whether subjects with metal contact allergy have increased risk of developing complications following orthopaedic implant insertion. Metal allergy might in a minority increase the risk of complications caused by a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction. At present, we do not know how to identify the subgroups of metal contact allergic patients with a potentially increased risk of complications following insertion of a metal implant. We recommend that clinicians should refrain from routine patch testing prior to surgery unless the patient has already had implant surgery with complications suspected to be allergic or has a history of clinical metal intolerance of sufficient magnitude to be of concern to the patient or a health provider. The clinical work-up of a patient suspected of having an allergic reaction to a metal implant should include patch testing and possibly in vitro testing. We propose diagnostic criteria for allergic dermatitis reactions as well as noneczematous complications caused by metal implants.