Systemic Allergic Contact Dermatitis Due to a GORE CARDIOFORM Septal Occluder Device: A Case Report and Literature Review

Nickel-related hypersensitivity reactions following endovascular interventions: A review of current evidence

INTRODUCTION

Nickel is a principal alloying agent in the production of vascular endoprostheses, despite persisting as the most habitually identified allergen. Variable nickel-related hypersensitivity manifestations following endovascular intervention were reported, challenging established paradigms in treatment and accuracy of prognostic assessments. The objective of this review is to critically evaluate current metrics to maximise patient-related outcomes.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 statement. Patients indicative of nickel hypersensitivity reaction following endovascular intervention were discerned. A positive reaction was defined by patch testing, histological analysis, or anamnesis indicative of nickel hypersensitivity. Morphology of implicating prostheses, adverse events and postoperative complications, clinical course, diagnostic and therapeutic strategies alongside patient prognosis were recorded.

RESULTS

Nickel-related hypersensitivity reactions following endovascular repair were identified in 36 patients with a median age of 44.5 years. 20 patients received nitinol-containing intervention. 28 (77.8%) patients are female. Multi-organ adverse reactions occurred in 21 (58.3%) patients with variable latency. 14 (38.9%) patients were presented with neurological adverse reactions manifesting mainly as unilateral hemiparesis. Dermatological reactions implicated 16 (44.4%) patients. Miscellaneous manifestations include suicidal ideation. 13 (36.1%) patients displayed previous metal intolerance and 32 (88.9%) patients had positive patch testing for nickel. Histological analysis of lesions and prostheses indicated lymphocytic infiltration. 5 (13.9%) patients experienced device-specific reactions as in-stent restenosis or auxiliary distal vessel stenosis. 11 (30.1%) patients received solely medical therapy and 5 (13.9%) patients received solely surgical therapy. 19 (52.7%) patients underwent both medical (oral corticosteroid) and surgical therapy (device retrieval). 26 (77.1%) patients achieved symptomatic cessation, 6 (16.7%) patients exhibited symptomatic persistence and 0 patients died.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic pre-assessment for a history of metal allergy and consideration of prostheses alternatives is recommended to minimise reaction risk and severity. Despite nickel's predominant usage, information paucity urges additional studies to emphasise its implications and maximise patient outcomes.

Surgical removal of atrial septal defect closure device due to systemic allergic reaction to nickel: A case report

Systemic hypersensitivity reaction to nickel-containing medical device is a rare complication after percutaneous atrial septal defect closure. The symptoms regress spontaneously or in response to medical treatment in most cases. Surgical device removal is mandatory and effective in patients whose symptoms persist despite optimal medical therapy. Herein, we report a case of systemic allergic contact dermatitis secondary to nickel allergy after atrial septal defect closure and its successful treatment with surgical removal of the device.

Nickel Hypersensitivity to Atrial Septal Occluders: Smoke Without Fire?

Nickel is one of the most common contact allergens worldwide; it is used as the main component of the devices used for atrial septal defects (ASDs) and patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure. Developing nickel hypersensitivity after PFO/ASD occlusion is significantly rarer described in medical literature than typical nickel contact sensitization. The exact pathophysiological mechanism of this "device syndrome" remains unknown, and many question the real incidence or even the existence of this clinical entity. Nevertheless, it has been associated with a wide spectrum of symptoms, including chest pain, migraines, palpitation, and dyspnea. Skin patch tests are the first-line approach to diagnose nickel hypersensitivity. However, diagnostic criteria for the device syndrome have not been developed, and diagnosis in reported cases is established by a process of elimination. Management-drug therapy (corticosteroids, clopidogrel, etc.) or even surgical explantation in severe cases-of patients developing such clinical manifestations after percutaneous PFO/ASD occlusion is empirical. Undoubtedly, endocardiac device-related nickel hypersensitivity requires more focused research to discover the underlying mechanism as well as to develop reliable prognostic tests for detecting high-risk patients and preventing severe nickel hypersensitivity reactions.