4.6 Article

Delayed Development of Coronary Artery Aneurysm in Patients with Kawasaki Disease Who Were Clinically Responsive to Immunoglobulin

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 227, 期 -, 页码 224-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.032

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fukuoka Children's Hospital [H25-13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To clarify the frequency and characteristics of discrepant outcomes of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) between fever and coronary artery aneurysms (CAAs) in patients with Kawasaki disease. Study design This study included 325 patients who responded to oral aspirin and IVIG alone. The main outcome was CAA 4 weeks after disease onset. CAA was defined as >= 2.5 of maximum z score (Zmax) representing the highest value of 4 coronary artery branches. Immunoglobulin dosage and sequential changes in Zmax were reviewed to investigate the effects on fever and timing of CAA development. Logistic regression analyses with receiver operating characteristic curves using clinical and laboratory variables including the initial Zmax were performed to identify predictors of CAA at 4 weeks. Results CAAs were either persistent or appeared de novo 4 weeks after diagnosis in 13 of 325 patients who responded to a single or repeated IVIG. Four single-dose IVIG-responders developed CAA although they had pretreatment Zmax of <2.0. The 2 single-dose IVIG responders with the greatest pretreatment Zmax (>4.5) developed persistent CAA. Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated Zmax of 2.57 as the cut-off for predicting CAA. Multivariable analyses identified >2.5 Zmax (OR 9.08, 95% CI 1.26-65.3, P = .028, 50% sensitivity, 91% specificity) as the sole risk factor for CAA at 4 weeks in single-dose IVIG responders. Conclusions Delayed development and persistence of CAA in single-dose IVIG responders indicate that some factors other than those responsible for systemic inflammation may contribute to vasculitis in CAA. Baseline Zmax 2.5 aids in predicting CAAs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据