Background/Introduction The CT-BCIS-Jeopardy score is a simple angiographic scoring system, enabling quantification of the extent of jeopardized myocardium related to clinically significant coronary artery disease (CAD), using coronary CT angiography (CCTA). Grading only lesions with ≥70% diameter stenosis and ranging from zero (non-significant CAD) to twelve (very extensive CAD), it allows accurate and fast identification of high-risk CAD. We aimed to assess the long-term prognostic value of the CT-BCIS-Jeopardy score. Methods Retrospectively, 337 patients with known or suspected CAD referred for CCTA between 2005 and December 2008 were included. The CT-BCIS-Jeopardy score was estimated for all patients using a purpose-developed online calculator, with a score of ≥6 indicating high-risk CAD. Endpoints were all-cause death or myocardial infarction ("hard events") and a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to identify survival free of MACE, and Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to determine independent predictors for MACE. Results Mean patients’ age was 61.7±11 years and 216 (64%) were male. High-risk CAD was detected in 88 (26.1%) patients. During a median follow-up of 6.8 (IQR: 5.7-8.5) years, 47 (14%) patients had a hard event and 97 (29%) patients experienced any MACE. Compared to non-high-risk CAD, patients with high-risk CAD had 9.6-fold higher event rate for hard events [9 (19%) vs. 38 (81%); p<0.001] and 22-fold higher annual event rate for any MACE [19 (5.6%) vs. 78 (23%); p<0.001]. When adjusted for age, sex, BMI, and traditional CAD risk factors, a CT-BCIS-Jeopardy score of ≥6 was an independent strong predictor of both, all MACE and hard events. Conclusions The CT-BCIS-Jeopardy score is an excellent non-invasive long-term predictor of adverse cardiac events. High-risk CAD identified using the score is associated with significantly higher annual cardiac event rate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Giannopoulos et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: