Bradbury AW, Hall JA, Popplewell MA, Meecham L, Bate GR, Kelly L, Deeks JJ, Moakes CA. Plain versus drug balloon and stenting in severe ischaemia of the leg (BASIL-3): open label, three arm, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial.
BMJ 2025;
388:e080881. [PMID:
39993822 PMCID:
PMC11848676 DOI:
10.1136/bmj-2024-080881]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/23/2025] [Indexed: 02/26/2025]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To determine which primary endovascular revascularisation strategy represents the most clinically effective treatment for patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who require endovascular femoro-popliteal, with or without infra-popliteal, revascularisation.
DESIGN
Three arm, open label, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 superiority trial (BASIL-3).
SETTING
35 UK NHS vascular units.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who required endovascular femoro-popliteal, with or without infra-popliteal, revascularisation.
INTERVENTIONS
Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to femoro-popliteal plain balloon angioplasty with or without bare metal stenting (PBA±BMS), drug coated balloon angioplasty with or without bare metal stenting (DCBA±BMS), or drug eluting stenting (DES) as their first revascularisation strategy.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcome was amputation free survival defined as time to first major amputation or death from any cause. Secondary outcomes included the composite components of the primary outcome, major adverse limb events, major adverse cardiac events, and other prespecified clinical and patient reported outcome measures. Serious adverse events were collected up to 30 days after the first revascularisation procedure.
RESULTS
Between 29 January 2016 and 31 August 2021, 481 participants were randomised (167 (35%) women, mean age 71.8 years (standard deviation 10.8)). Major amputation or death occurred in 106 of 160 (66%) participants in the PBA±BMS group, 97 of 161 (60%) in the DCBA±BMS group, and 93 of 159 (58%) in the DES group (adjusted hazard ratios: PBA±BMS v DCBA±BMS: 0.84, 97.5% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.16, P=0.22; PBA±BMS v DES: 0.83, 0.60 to 1.15, P=0.20). No differences in serious adverse events were reported between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Neither DCBA±BMS nor DES conferred significant clinical benefit over PBA±BMS in the femoro-popliteal segment in patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia undergoing endovascular femoro-popliteal, with or without infra-popliteal, revascularisation.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ISRCTN registry ISRCTN14469736.
Collapse