ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2025
Management of Patients with Nickel Hypersensitivity Undergoing Patent Foramen Ovale Closure.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is implicated in cryptogenic stroke and other clinical syndromes, with transcatheter closure demonstrating superiority over medical therapy in selected patients. Most closure devices are composed of nitinol, a nickel-titanium alloy, raising concerns in individuals with nickel hypersensitivity, one of the most prevalent contact allergies worldwide. Although typically manifesting as localized dermatitis, nickel allergy has been associated with systemic reactions after device implantation, including chest pain, palpitations, migraines, dyspnea, and cutaneous eruptions. Recent evidence indicates that nickel-sensitive patients experience a significantly higher incidence of post-procedural device-related symptoms. Nevertheless, severe reactions remain rare, and the benefits of PFO closure generally outweigh the risks. The predictive value of pre-implantation patch testing remains uncertain, and the lack of nickel-free alternatives constrains device selection. Management strategies are empirical, relying on symptomatic treatment with corticosteroids, antihistamines, or device explantation in refractory cases. Future research should focus on elucidating the pathophysiology of nickel-induced hypersensitivity in cardiovascular implants, improving diagnostic algorithms, and developing biocompatible, nickel-free devices. A multidisciplinary approach involving cardiologists, dermatologists, and allergists is essential to optimize outcomes in this complex subset of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.