ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
A Case of Silicone Allergy Induced by a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Allergic reactions associated with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) are extremely rare, and silicone-related cases are scarcely reported. Methods and Results: A 54-year-old man with a transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) for idiopathic ventricular fibrillation underwent removal of an infected TV-ICD system, followed by S-ICD implantation. Seven months later, a granulomatous lesion developed at the xiphoid incision site without signs of infection. Conservative management was initially selected; however, progressive wound deterioration and eventual device exposure necessitated complete system removal. Patch testing demonstrated a positive reaction to silicone, a device component corresponding to the lesion site. Conclusions: This case highlights that silicone-related hypersensitivity, although extremely rare, should be considered when evaluating noninfectious wound complications after S-ICD implantation.
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.