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

Introduction The intentional strategy (aggressive side branch (SB) protection strategy: elective two-stent strategy or jailed balloon technique) is thought to be associated with lower SB occlusion rate than conventional strategy (provisional two-stent strategy or jailed wire technique). However, most previous studies showed comparable outcomes between the two strategies, probably due to no risk classification of SB occlusion when enrolling patients. There is still no randomised trial compared the intentional and conventional strategy when treating bifurcation lesions with high risk of SB occlusion. We aim to investigate if intentional strategy is associated with significant reduction of SB occlusion rate compared with conventional strategy in high-risk patients. Methods and analysis The Conventional versus Intentional straTegy in patients with high Risk prEdiction of Side branch OccLusion in coronary bifurcation interVEntion (CIT-RESOLVE) is a prospective, randomised, single-blind, multicentre clinical trial comparing the rate of SB occlusion between the intentional strategy group and the conventional strategy group (positive control group) in a consecutive cohort of patients with high risk of side branch occlusion defined by V-RESOLVE score, which is a validated angiographic scoring system to evaluate the risk of SB occlusion in bifurcation intervention and used as one of the inclusion criteria to select patients with high SB occlusion risk (V-RESOLVE score ≥12). A total of 21 hospitals from 10 provinces in China participated in the present study. 566 patients meeting all inclusion/exclusion criteria are randomised to either intentional strategy group or conventional strategy group. The primary endpoint is SB occlusion (defined as any decrease in thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade or absence of flow in SB after main vessel stenting). All patients are followed up for 12-month postdischarge. Ethics and dissemination The protocol has been approved by all local ethics committee. The ethics committee have approved the study protocol, evaluated the risk to benefit ratio, allowed operators with a minimum annual volume of 200 cases to participate in the percutaneous coronary intervention procedure and permitted them to perform both conventional and intentional strategies. Written informed consent would be acquired from all participants. The findings of the trial will be shared by the participant hospitals and disseminated through peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT02644434; Pre-results.