Pacemaker allergy

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and allergy

Advances in cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have prolonged life expectancy in various medical settings. However, the issue of hypersensitivity to components of CIEDs is still a concern. Since 1970, allergic reactions to metallic and nonmetallic components of CIEDs have been reported. Hypersensitivity reactions to medical devices are rare and not fully understood. In some cases, diagnosis and treatment are difficult. Cardiologists should always keep in mind pacemaker allergy when a patient appears with wound complications and no signs of infection. Patch testing should be tailored toward the specific biomaterials used in a device, in addition to testing with standard screening allergens in select cases.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Components of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Their Treatment: A Systematic Review

Background: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to components of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are rare but difficult to differentiate from device infection. Data on best management strategies of HSRs to CIEDs are lacking. The aims of this systematic review are to summarise the available literature on the aetiology, diagnosis and management of HSR in CIED patients and to provide guidance on best management strategies for these patients. Methods and results: A systematic search for publications on HSR to CIED in PubMed from January 1970 to November 2022 was conducted, resulting in 43 publications reporting on 57 individual cases. The quality of data was low. The mean age was 57 ± 21 years, and 48% of patients were women. The mean time from implant to diagnosis was 29 ± 59 months. Multiple allergens were identified in 11 patients (19%). In 14 cases (25%) no allergen was identified. Blood tests were mostly normal (55%), but eosinophilia (23%), raised inflammatory markers (18%) and raised immunoglobulin E (5%) were also encountered. Symptoms included local reactions, systemic reactions or both in 77%, 21% and 7% of patients, respectively. Explantation of CIED and reimplantation of another CIED coated with a non-allergenic material was usually successful. Use of topical or systemic steroids was associated with high failure rates. Conclusion: Based on the limited data available, the treatment of choice for HSRs to CIEDs is full CIED removal, reassessment of CIED indication and reimplantation of devices coated in non-allergenic materials. Steroids (topical/systemic) have limited efficiency and should not be used. There is an urgent need for further research in this field.

Contact Allergy: A Review of Current Problems from a Clinical Perspective

Contact allergy is common, affecting 27% of the general population in Europe. Original publications, including case reports, published since 2016 (inclusive) were identified with the aim of collating a full review of current problems in the field. To this end, a literature search employing methods of systematic reviewing was performed in the Medline^® and Web of Science™ databases on 28 January 2018, using the search terms (“contact sensitization” or “contact allergy”). Of 446 non-duplicate publications identified by above search, 147 were excluded based on scrutiny of title, abstract and key words. Of the remaining 299 examined in full text, 291 were deemed appropriate for inclusion, and main findings were summarised in topic sections. In conclusion, diverse sources of exposures to chemicals of widely-differing types and structures, continue to induce sensitisation in man and may result in allergic contact dermatitis. Many of the chemicals are “evergreen” but others are “newcomers”. Vigilance and proper investigation (patch testing) are required to detect and inform of the presence of these haptens to which our populations remain exposed.