Medium‐Term Complications Associated With Coronary Artery Aneurysms After Kawasaki Disease: A Study From the International Kawasaki Disease Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Coronary artery aneurysms (CAAs) may occur after Kawasaki disease (KD) and lead to important morbidity and mortality. As CAA in patients with KD are rare and heterogeneous lesions, prognostication and risk stratification are difficult. We sought to derive the cumulative risk and associated factors for cardiovascular complications in patients with CAAs after KD. Methods and Results A 34‐institution international registry of 1651 patients with KD who had CAAs (maximum CAA Z score ≥2.5) was used. Time‐to‐event analyses were performed using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazard models for risk factor analysis. In patients with CAA Z scores ≥10, the cumulative incidence of luminal narrowing (>50% of lumen diameter), coronary artery thrombosis, and composite major adverse cardiovascular complications at 10 years was 20±3%, 18±2%, and 14±2%, respectively. No complications were observed in patients with a CAA Z score <10. Higher CAA Z score and a greater number of coronary artery branches affected were associated with increased risk of all types of complications. At 10 years, normalization of luminal diameter was noted in 99±4% of patients with small (2.5≤ Z <5.0), 92±1% with medium (5.0≤ Z <10), and 57±3% with large CAAs ( Z ≥10). CAAs in the left anterior descending and circumflex coronary artery branches were more likely to normalize. Risk factor analysis of coronary artery branch level outcomes was performed with a total of 893 affected branches with Z score ≥10 in 440 patients. In multivariable regression models, hazards of luminal narrowing and thrombosis were higher for patients with CAAs of the right coronary artery and left anterior descending branches, those with CAAs that had complex architecture (other than isolated aneurysms), and those with CAAs with Z scores ≥20. Conclusions For patients with CAA after KD, medium‐term risk of complications is confined to those with maximum CAA Z scores ≥10. Further risk stratification and close follow‐up, including advanced imaging, in patients with large CAAs is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".