ArticleThe British journal of surgery2026
Plain balloon angioplasty with or without bare-metal stenting versus drug-coated balloon angioplasty with or without bare-metal stenting versus primary drug-eluting stenting in patients requiring femoropopliteal, with or without infrapopliteal, endovascular revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia: BASIL-3 within-trial health economic analysis.
Article in The British journal of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Plain balloon angioplasty +/- bare metal stenting versus drug-coated balloon angioplasty +/- bare metal stenting versus primary drug-eluting stenting in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia: BASIL-3, an open-label, three-arm, randomised, multi-centre, phase 3 trial.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe BASIL-3 trial demonstrated that patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia secondary to femoropopliteal disease who were randomized to plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) ± bare-metal stenting (BMS), drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) ± BMS, or drug-eluting stenting (DES) had similar clinical outcomes. Herein, the in-trial health economic analysis is presented.
methodsCost-utility analysis (CUA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) were conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services Research Unit. Patient-level resource use and health outcome data were collected from the BASIL-3 trial during 2-7 years of follow-up and were utilized to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios expressed as a cost per amputation-free life-year and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). EQ-5D-5L was used to generate participant QALYs at baseline and during follow-up.
resultsIn the CUA, DCBA was associated with slightly lower NHS costs (-£250.71 (95% c.i. -£4630.34 to £3652.10)), but slightly lower QALY gains (-0.007 (95% c.i. -0.116 to 0.097) QALYs) when compared with PBA. When compared with PBA, DES was less costly (-£724.52 (95% c.i. -£4975.04 to £2631.57)) and resulted in an additional 0.048 (95% c.i. -0.060 to 0.148) QALYs.
conclusionIn BASIL-3, the probability of DCBA and of DES being cost-effective at £20 000 per QALY was 52% and 76% respectively. At a higher willingness-to-pay threshold (£30 000 per QALY) DES may be cost-effective and further research is required to explore the economic case.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.