ArticleEuropean heart journal. Case reports2025
Implanting a gold-coated cardioverter-defibrillator as a solution to cardiac implantable device hypersensitivity: a case report.
Article in European heart journal. Case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gold coating for CIED hypersensitivity: a proactive strategy: when and how to act.European heart journal. Case reports · 2026Article
- Optimizing care for suspected cardiac implantable electronic device hypersensitivity: algorithms, evidence gaps, and the role of wearable cardioverter-defibrillator.European heart journal. Case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hypersensitivity to cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) materials is a rare and underrecognized complication. It often mimics infection, leading to misdiagnosis and inappropriate management. This case report contributes to the literature by demonstrating a structured diagnostic approach and the successful use of a custom-made, gold-coated ICD. Case summary: A 40-year-old male with dilated cardiomyopathy underwent subcutaneous ICD implantation. Seven months later, he presented with symptoms suggesting pocket infection, resulting in device removal. Subsequently, a transvenous ICD was implanted, but within weeks, signs of local inflammation reappeared, progressing to a necrotizing fistula. Blood tests and wound cultures revealed no infection. Given the patient's history of cutaneous allergic reactions to metals, hypersensitivity was suspected. Skin patch testing confirmed allergic responses to multiple device components. The patient underwent complete system extraction. A custom-made, gold-coated single-chamber ICD was provided by the manufacturer and successfully implanted. One-year follow-up revealed no signs of recurrent inflammation or allergic symptoms, confirming the diagnosis and effectiveness of the intervention. Discussion: Hypersensitivity to CIED materials is an important differential diagnosis in cases of recurrent pocket inflammation with negative microbiological findings. Due to overlapping local symptoms, it is frequently mistaken for infection, leading to delayed or inappropriate management. A detailed allergy history and use of skin patch testing are essential in guiding diagnosis. Once confirmed, conservative measures such as corticosteroids have limited value, and definitive treatment requires full system explantation. Reimplantation with a hypoallergenic device-such as a gold-coated generator-represents an effective therapeutic strategy.
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.