The assessment of ischaemic burden: validation of a functional jeopardy score against cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging.

AIMS

This study assesses the relationship between classical anatomical jeopardy scores, functional jeopardy scores (combined anatomical and haemodynamic data), and the extent of ischaemia identified on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion imaging.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 42 patients with stable angina and suspected coronary artery disease (CAD), CMR perfusion imaging was performed. Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) was measured in vessels with ≥50 % stenosis. The APPROACH and BCIS jeopardy scores were calculated based on QCA results with both a 70 % (APP and BCIS) and a 50 % stenosis (APP, and BCIS) used as the threshold for significance, as well as after integration of FFR and compared with the extent of ischaemia identified on CMR. The correlation between the extent of ischaemia measured by CMR and the anatomical jeopardy scores was moderate (APPROACH: r = 0.58; BCIS: r = 0.48, p = 0.001). Integrating physiological information improved this significantly to r = 0.82, p = 0.0001 for APPROACH and r = 0.82, p = 0.0001 for BCIS scores (z-statistic = -2.04, p = 0.04; z-statistic = -2.63, p = 0.009). In relation to CMR, the APPROACH and BCIS scores overestimated the volume of ischaemic myocardium by 29.2 and 25.2 %, respectively, which was reduced to 12.8 and 12 % after integrating functional data.

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomical and functional jeopardy scores overestimate ischaemic burden when compared to CMR. Integrating physiological information from FFR to generate a functional score improves ischaemic burden estimation.