A randomised comparison of Conventional versus Intentional straTegy in patients with high Risk prEdiction of Side branch OccLusion in coronary bifurcation interVEntion: rationale and design of the CIT-RESOLVE trial

Jailed Balloon Technique Is Superior to Jailed Wire Technique in Reducing the Rate of Side Branch Occlusion: Subgroup Analysis of the Conventional Versus Intentional StraTegy in Patients With High Risk PrEdiction of Side Branch OccLusion in Coronary Bifurcation InterVEntion Trial

Objective

Jailed balloon technique (JBT) is an active side branch (SB) protection strategy and is considered to be superior to the jailed wire technique (JWT) in reducing SB occlusion. However, no randomized trials have proved that. We aim to investigate whether JBT could decrease the SB occlusion rate.

Methods

Conventional versus Intentional straTegy in patients with high Risk prEdiction of Side branch OccLusion in coronary bifurcation interVEntion (CIT-RESOLVE) (NCT02644434, registered on December 31, 2015) (https://clinicaltrials.gov) is a randomized trial that assessed the effects of different strategies on SB occlusion rate in patients with a high risk of SB occlusion. The present subgroup analysis enrolled bifurcation lesions (2 mm ≤ reference vessel diameter of SB < 2.5 mm) with Visual estimation for Risk prEdiction of Side branch OccLusion in coronary bifurcation intervention (V-RESOLVE) score ≥ 12 points. The primary endpoint is SB occlusion. One-year clinical events were compared.

Results

A total of 284 subjects at 16 sites were randomly assigned to the JBT group (n = 143) or the JWT group (n = 141). The rate of SB occlusion (9.1 vs. 19.9%, p = 0.02) and periprocedural myocardial infarction (defined by WHO, 7 vs. 14.9%, p = 0.03) is significantly lower in the JBT group than in the JWT group. The JBT and JWT groups showed no significant differences in cardiac death (0.7 vs. 0.7%, p = 1), myocardial infarction (MI, 6.3 vs. 7.1%, p = 0.79), target lesion revascularization (TLR, 1.4 vs. 2.1%, p = 0.68), and major cardiac adverse events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, MI, or TLR, 8.4 vs. 10.6%, p = 0.52) during a 1-year follow-up.

Conclusion

In patients with a high risk of SB occlusion (V-RESOLVE score ≥ 12 points), JBT is superior to JWT in reducing SB occlusion. However, no significant differences were detected in 1-year MACE.

Active SB-P Versus Conventional Approach to the Protection of High-Risk Side Branches: The CIT-RESOLVE Trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine whether an active side branch protection (SB-P) strategy is superior to the conventional strategy in reducing side branch (SB) occlusion in high-risk bifurcation treatment.

BACKGROUND

Accurate prediction of SB occlusion after main vessel stenting followed by the use of specific strategies to prevent occlusion would be beneficial during bifurcation intervention.

METHODS

Eligible patients who had a bifurcation lesions with high risk for occlusion as determined using the validated V-RESOLVE (Visual Estimation for Risk Prediction of Side Branch Occlusion in Coronary Bifurcation Intervention) score were randomized to an active SB-P strategy group (elective 2-stent strategy for large SBs and jailed balloon technique for small SBs) or a conventional strategy group (provisional stenting for large SBs and jailed wire technique for small SBs) in a 1:1 ratio stratified by SB vessel size. The primary endpoint of SB occlusion was defined as an angiography core laboratory-assessed decrease in TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) flow grade or absence of flow in the SB immediately after full apposition of the main vessel stent to the vessel wall.

RESULTS

A total of 335 subjects at 16 sites were randomized to the SB-P group (n = 168) and conventional group (n = 167). Patients in the SB-P versus conventional strategy group had a significantly lower rate of SB occlusion (7.7% [13 of 168] vs. 18.0% [30 of 167]; risk difference: -9.1%; 95% confidence interval: -13.1% to -1.8%; p = 0.006), driven mainly by the difference in the small SB subgroup (jailed balloon technique vs. jailed wire technique: 8.1% vs. 18.5%; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

An active SB-P strategy is superior to a conventional strategy in reducing SB occlusion when treating high-risk bifurcation lesions. (Conventional Versus Intentional Strategy in Patients With High Risk Prediction of Side Branch Occlusion in Coronary Bifurcation Intervention [CIT-RESOLVE]; NCT02644434).