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.

Nickel hypersensitivity and endovascular devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Nickel allergy is common; endovascular specialists are often confronted with nickel allergic patients ahead of the implantation of endovascular devices, many of which are nickel-containing. Our aim was to elucidate whether nickel hypersensitivity is significantly associated with worse or adverse outcomes after placement of a nickel-containing endovascular device.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were: endovascular and transcatheter procedures for coronary, structural heart, neurovascular and peripheral vascular pathology involving nickel-allergic patients. All adverse outcomes were included as defined by included studies. A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken using a random-effects model. Searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE were conducted for articles published 1947-2019.

RESULTS

190 records were identified, 78 articles were included for qualitative synthesis and 15 met criteria for meta-analysis. Patch-test confirmed nickel allergy was associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes following implantation of a nickel-containing endovascular device (n=14 articles, 1740 patients; OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.85). This finding further was observed in coronary (n=12 articles, 1624 patients; OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.23) and structural heart subgroups (n=2 articles, 83 patients; OR 52.28, 95% CI 1.31 to 2079.14), but not in the neurovascular subgroup (n=1 article, 33 patients; OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.59 to 15.72) or with a patient-reported history of nickel allergy (n=2 articles, 207 patients; OR 2.14, 95% CI 0.23 to 19.70).

CONCLUSIONS

Patch-tested nickel allergy is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes following endovascular device implantation and alternative treatment options should be considered. Specialists faced with patients' self-reporting nickel allergy should consider proceeding to diagnostic patch-testing.

Nickel Allergy: Epidemiology, Pathomechanism, Clinical Patterns, Treatment and Prevention Programs

Nickel is the most common cause of contact allergy in the general population and the most frequently detected allergen in patients patch tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). ACD from nickel is a typical type IV hypersensitivity. Nickel allergy is mostly caused by nonoccupational exposure, such as jewelry and clothing decorations, metal tools, medical devices (mainly orthopedic and orthodontic implants, cardiovascular prosthesis), eyeglasses, utensils, keys, pigment for paint, cosmetics, and food (mainly legumes, chocolate, salmon, peanuts). Occupational exposure can involve several workers (mechanics, metalworkers, platers, hairdressers, jewelers, workers in the constructions and electronic industries), classically involving hands and forearms. The classic clinical pattern of ACD caused by nickel is characterized by eczematous dermatitis involving the sites of direct contact with the metal. Non-eczematous-patterns are reported, including lichenoid dermatitis, granuloma annulare, vitiligo-like lesions, dyshidrosiform dermatitis, and vasculitis. In the case of systemic exposure to nickel, sensitized patients could develop systemic contact dermatitis. Patch testing represents the gold standard for the diagnosis of ACD from nickel. Treatment includes avoidance of contact with products containing nickel and the patient's education about the possible use of alternative products. A recent EU nickel directive, regulating the content and release of nickel from products, has caused a decrease of nickel contact allergy in some European countries. Nickel allergy is a relevant issue of public health with significant personal, social, and economic impact. This review summarizes epidemiology, pathomechanism, clinical patterns, treatment, and prevention programs.