Assessment of prevalence of skin allergic reactions and systemic hypersensitivity reactions in patients with implantable devices used in electrotherapy of cardiovascular diseases
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Implantable endovascular devices significantly reduce mortality and improve prognosis in patients with chronic cardiovascular disorders. These
include pacemakers, cardioverter-defibrillators and resynchronization devices. The use of these devices is perceived as safe and clinically effective.
However, there have been reports in the literature of individual cases of skin allergic reactions and systemic hypersensitivity reactions in relation
to the implanted devices. The aim of the study was to assess the prevalence of these complications in electrotherapy procedures. The study
group included 1683 patients who underwent the implantation of the electrotherapy device in the years 2008–2018 at the Cardiology Department
of the Provincial Hospital in Wloclawek. During the follow-up, not a single case of skin allergic reaction or systemic hypersensitivity reaction to
the implanted device was recorded. In the analyzed population in the whole observation period, 3 cases qualified for planned system removal were
observed. In each of them, infectious aetiology was confirmed as the cause of complications, isolating the pathogen from intraoperative material.
Downloads
Article Details
Copyright: © Medical Education sp. z o.o. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Address reprint requests to: Medical Education, Marcin Kuźma (marcin.kuzma@mededu.pl)
References
2. Nacarelli GV, Conti JB, Di Marco JP et al. 2008 COCATS 3 Task Force 6: training in specialized electrophysiology, cardiac pacing, and arrhythmia management. Heart Rhythm. 2008; 5(2): 332-337.
3. Brignole M, Moya A, De Lange FJ et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope. Eur Heart J. 2018; 00: 1-69.
4. Kang J, Simpson C, Campbell D et al. Cardiac Rhythm Device Contact Dermatitis. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2013; 18(1): 79-83.
5. Ljubojević Hadžavdić S, Murtezani I, Bradamant M et al. Pacemaker allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2017; 76(5): 307-309.
6. Maňoušek J, Andršová I, Stejskal V et al. Hypersensitivity to material and environmental burden as a possible cause of late complications of cardiac implantable electronic devices. Europace. 2018; 20: 140-147.
7. Honari G, Ellis SG, Wilkoff BL et al. Hypersensitivity reactions associated with endovascular devices. Contact Dermatitis. 2008; 59: 7-22.
8. Dogan P, Inci S, Kuyumcu MS et al. Contact dermatitis after implantable cardiac defibrillator implantation for ventricular tachycardia. Intractable Rare Dis Res. 2016; 5(1): 56-57.
9. Andrews ID, Scheinman P. Systemic hypersensitivity reaction (without cutaneous manifestations) to an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Dermatitis. 2011; 22(3): 161-164.
10. Tilsley DA, Rotstein H. Sensitivity caused by internal exposure to nickel, chrome and cobalt. Contact Dermatitis. 1980; 6: 175-178.
11. Akdis M, Schmid-Weber C, Jutel M et al. Mechanism of allergen immunotherapy. Allergy Clin Immunol Int-J World Allergy Org. 2004; 16: 65.