Search

Background: The substantial risk of thrombosis in large coronary artery aneurysms (CAAs) (maximum z-score ≥ 10) after Kawasaki disease (KD) mandates effective thromboprophylaxis. We sought to determine the effectiveness of anticoagulation (low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH] or warfarin) for thromboprophylaxis in large CAAs., Methods: Data from 383 patients enrolled in the International KD Registry (IKDR) were used. Time-to-event analysis was used to account for differences in treatment duration and follow-up., Results: From diagnosis onward (96% received acetylsalicylic acid concomitantly), 114 patients received LMWH (median duration 6.2 months, interquartile range [IQR] 2.5-12.7), 80 warfarin (median duration 2.2 years, IQR 0.9-7.1), and 189 no anticoagulation. Cumulative incidence of coronary artery thrombosis with LMWH was 5.7 ± 3.0%, with warfarin 6.7 ± 3.7%, and with no anticoagulation 20.6 ± 3.0% (P < 0.001) at 2.5 years after the start of thromboprophylaxis (LMWH vs warfarin HR 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-5.1; P = 0.56). A total of 51/63 patients with coronary artery thrombosis received secondary thromboprophylaxis (ie, thromboprophylaxis after a previous thrombus): 27 LMWH, 24 warfarin. There were no differences in incidence of further coronary artery thrombosis between strategies (HR 2.9, 95% CI 0.6-13.5; P = 0.19). Severe bleeding complications were generally rare (1.6 events per 100 patient-years) and were noted equally for patients on LMWH and warfarin (HR 2.3, 95% CI 0.6-8.9; P = 0.25)., Conclusions: LMWH and warfarin appear to have equivalent effectiveness for preventing thrombosis in large CAAs after KD, although event rates for secondary thromboprophylaxis and safety outcomes were low. Based on our findings, all patients with CAA z-score ≥ 10 should receive anticoagulation, but the choice of agent might be informed by secondary risk factors and patient preferences., (Copyright © 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The pediatric lipid screening and treatment practices, attitudes, and perceived barriers of Canadian pediatricians are not known. We sought to evaluate this in a survey of pediatricians through the Canadian Pediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) in March 2019. The survey included an assessment of lipid screening of 9- to 11-year-old youth and a hypothetical case of persistent severe dyslipidemia to ascertain management practices. There were 759 respondents (28% response rate, 759 of 2742), of whom 236 provided outpatient primary care to 9- to 11-year-old youth as part of their routine clinical practice. Among primary care-providing pediatricians, universal lipid screening of healthy 9- to 11-year-old youth most or all of the time was reported by 3% (8 of 230). Reported screening practices most or all of the time were more common for youth with risk factors such as overweight and obesity (54%, 127 of 235) and a family history of premature cardiovascular disease (39%, 85 of 217). Most respondents would refer a child with severe persistent dyslipidemia to dieticians (69%, 152 of 220) and a lipid specialist (64%, 144 of 220) most or all of the time, whereas 7% (16 of 220) would start statin therapy themselves. A lack of Canadian pediatric lipid guidelines was reported as a major barrier for 49% (114 of 233) and minor barrier for 40% (93 of 213). The rate of routine lipid screening of healthy 9- to 11-year-old youth among Canadian primary care-providing pediatricians is low and at odds with current US guidelines. This discrepancy may be due at least in part to a lack of Canadian guidelines on pediatric dyslipidemia, the development of which may address certain perceived barriers and influence future attitudes., (Copyright © 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)