There are catalysts in astrophysical fusion reactions (such as in stellar interiors where hydrogen is converted to helium with the help of carbon which is regenerated), but this process has nothing to do with the way catalysts work in chemical reactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

The palladium reaction with monatomic hydrogen I mentioned (I actually broke down and looked this up!) is used industrially to produce high-purity H2 for semiconductor manufacture

http://pureguard.net/Outside_In_vs._Inside_Out_Write_Upnew.pdf

These two reactions are, as you point out, fundamentally very different ones, one involving atomic nuclei and the other electron shell interactions. There are orders of magnitude differences in the exothermic consequences of the two.

Still, it is possible that an energetic chemical reaction could be mistaken for a very low efficiency fusion reaction. It certainly sounds like this is happneing in this case, with the palladium "catalyst" involved. Still fusion consumes at least one element, and generates at least one other, and as far as I know, all fusion reactions give off some radiation, at least while they are actually happening if not as a radioisotope residue among the products. It should be possible to test for this with relatively simple chemical and radiological analyses and either establish or rule out whether fusion, hot or cold, is actually taking place. It isn't just the thermal budget excess that gives it away. A whole lot of other evidence is left behind when real fusion occurs.

None of this is even mentioned in the article. I would feel a lot more comfortable with this report if I had been reassured these obvious precautions were taking place. I smell a rat.