Skip to content

DRug-Eluting BallOOn Versus Primary Polymer-coated Paclitaxel Eluting STenting for Femoro-popliteal Lesions

DRug-Eluting BallOOn Versus Primary Polymer-coated Paclitaxel Eluting STenting for Femoro-popliteal Lesions

Status
Not yet recruiting
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT06835660
Acronym
REBOOST
Enrollment
402
Registered
2025-02-19
Start date
2025-05-31
Completion date
2028-12-31
Last updated
2025-02-19

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Femoropopliteal Lesion

Keywords

femoropopliteal lesion, lower limb peripheral arterial disease, self-expandable bare metal stent, plain balloon angioplasty, self expandable polymer-coated paclitaxel eluting stents, drug-coated balloon

Brief summary

Main objective of the study: To demonstrate that a primary DCB strategy is non-inferior in terms of primary patency to a primary SEDES strategy for above-the-knee femoro-popliteal lesions at 12 months. Primary endpoint: Freedom from loss of primary patency at 12 months: loss of primary patency will be defined as the need for target vessel revascularization and/or binary restenosis (defined as \>70% in diameter or peak systolic velocity \>2.4 m/sec at duplex examination). Secondary objectives: To demonstrate that a primary DCB strategy is non-inferior to a primary SEDES strategy in terms of: * Intra-operative technical success. * Safety at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. * Primary patency at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. * Assisted primary patency at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. * Secondary patency at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. * All target vessel revascularization at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. * Clinically-driven target vessel revascularization at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. * All TLR at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. * Clinically-driven TLR at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. * All target extremity revascularization at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. * Number of secondary interventions at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. * Binary restenosis at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. * Mean Rutherford category at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. * Mean ABI value at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. * Absolute claudication distance improvement at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. * Quality of life at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. * Cost at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months.

Detailed description

Femoropopliteal lesions (FPL) are the most common localization of lower limb peripheral arterial disease (LLPAD). Previous prospective randomized studies conducted in the 2000s demonstrated the superiority of self-expandable bare metal stent (SEBMS) placement over plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) in FPL at 12 months, 24 months and beyond. Recent studies show a significant benefit of self expandable polymer-coated paclitaxel eluting stents (SEDES) over SEBMS and led to consider SEDES implantation as the treatment of choice for FPL, especially in France with ≈45 000 self expandable stents implantations per year at this level. More recently, prospective randomized trials demonstrated that drug-coated balloon (DCB) use was superior to PBA in FPL at 12 months, 24 months and beyond. Primary patency at 12 months of both SEDES and DCB appeared in the same ranges. SEDES and DCB are therefore now recognized as two valuable options for FPL and they are both reimbursed for the treatment of such lesions. However, the choice between the two treatment strategies remains unclear. On one hand, primary SEDES allows a secure approach that limits the risk of post-angioplasty dissection and thrombosis, but a permanent metallic scaffold remains inside the treated artery, with a late risk of stent fracture and challenging in-stent restenosis. On the other hand, DCB may be at risk of early arterial recoil but allows leaving nothing behind in the arterial bed. Early recoil mandates self expandable stents implantation after DCB with an increased procedural cost in approximately 10% of patients. Since no rigorous independent trial directly compared these two strategies, this study will prospectively compare SEDES and DCB for above-the-knee FPL. This study is a non-inferiority, prospective, comparative trial. Patients will be screened using clinical and duplex scan examinations. Patients matching inclusion criteria and without exclusion criteria will give written informed consent before the endovascular revascularization procedure. Technically, following puncture of the femoral artery, an angiogram will be performed. The lesion(s) will be identified and crossed by a guidewire. Vessel preparation (predilatation) will be performed using PBA at the level of the lesion up to the index diameter of the artery (60 seconds minimum). Another angiogram will determine technical success or failure of the predilatation. Predilatation success is defined as the absence of flow limiting dissection and/or residual stenosis \>30%. Patients with predilatation failure will receive an adequate treatment (generally a provisional stenting) at the physician's discretion. These patients with predilatation failure will not be randomized and will not be further followed in the study. Patients with predilatation success will then be randomized intraoperatively to a DCB or a SEDES strategy using a dedicated web server with stratification on Center, Rutherford category (2-3/4) and lesion length (short vs. long lesion, as described above). Participants will be distributed between groups at a ratio of (1:1). After the procedure, patients will be prescribed clopidogrel for 90 days and aspirin for lifelong. Patients will be assessed at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months follow-up with clinical and duplex-scan examination. An independent core laboratory will examine duplex-scan results. 15 national sites/recruitment centers will be involved in the study targetting 402 patients.

Interventions

DEVICEprocedure of DCB implantation

Patients assigned to the DCB group (study group) will receive DCB inflation(s) at the level of the lesions according the DCB instructions for use (120 seconds inflation minimum). One or several DCBs will be inflated at the level of the lesions depending on lesions' lengths. The DCB diameter(s) will be the one(s) of the index diameter of the artery. Overlaps between zones that will receive DCB inflations will be of 10 mm to avoid any geographic miss.

DEVICEprocedure of SEDES implantation

SEDES implantation wille be performed according to the SEDES instructions for use. Stent(s) oversizing will be of 1 mm maximum. Overlaps between stents will be of 10 mm. Completion angiogram will assess the technical success of the procedure (see endpoints definitions). The physician may then decide to add a bailout SEBMS because of flow limiting dissection and/or a new stenosis \>30%.

Sponsors

Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Masking description

This is a single blind study. Patients will not be aware of the treatment received at the level of the FPL (DCB or SEBMS). During the procedure and the duplex-scan examinations for follow-up, the medical team will not use any term allowing the patient to know which medical device is used. The operative and the duplex-scan reports will not allow to know in the which treatment arm is the patient.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Subject age ≥ 18 * Subject has been informed of the nature of the study, agrees to participate, and has signed a Medical Ethics Committee approved consent form. * Rutherford category 2-4. * Femoro-popliteal stenosis/occlusion * Target lesion is below the origin of the profunda femoris and does not exceed the medial femoral epicondyle. * Patent inflow artery (\<30% diameter stenosis). * Patency of at least one infrapopliteal artery to the ankle (\<30% diameter stenosis) in continuity with the native femoropopliteal artery.

Exclusion criteria

* Inability to obtain informed consent. * Life expectancy \<24 months. * Pregnancy or breastfeeding during study period. * Known clotting disorders. * Contraindication to antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulants. * Known hypersensitivity to nitinol or paclitaxel. * Enrollment into another study. * Significant iliac or common femoral stenosis (\<30% diameter) requiring intervention during the index procedure. * In-stent restenosis * Total occlusion non-crossable by a guidewire. * Acute thrombosis of target vessel * Prior ipsilateral femoro-popliteal bypass. * Implantation of a drug-eluting stent.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Loss of primary patencyat 12 monthsFreedom from loss of primary patency at 12 months: loss of primary patency will be defined as the need for target vessel revascularization and/or binary restenosis. defined as \>70% in diameter or peak systolic velocity \>2.4 m/sec at duplex examination

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Assisted primary patencyat 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 monthsAssisted primary patency is defined as vessel patency even when maintained by repeated percutaneous intervention, but prior to complete vessel occlusion.
Secondary patencyat 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 monthsSecondary patency is defined as vessel patency even when maintained by repeated percutaneous intervention, prior or after complete vessel occlusion.
Target vessel revascularizationat 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 monthsTarget vessel revascularization, defined by any secondary intervention on the ipsilateral femoropopliteal artery above the knee.
Clinically-driven target vessel revascularizationat 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 monthsClinically-driven target vessel revascularization
Target lesion revascularization (TLR)at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 monthsTarget lesion revascularization (TLR) defined by any secondary intervention on the index lesion.
Clinically-driven TLRat 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 monthsClinically-driven TLR
Intraoperative technical successthrough study completion, an average of 24 monthsIntraoperative technical success, defined as the absence of flow limiting dissection or residual stenosis \>30% at the final completion angiogram.
Binary restenosisat 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 monthsBinary restenosis, defined as \>70% or peak systolic velocity \>2.4 m/sec at duplex examination
Rutherford categoryat 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 monthsRutherford category by Rutherford classification
ABI valueat baseline, 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 monthsABI value: ankle-brachial index evaluated by clinical examination
Absolute claudication distance improvementat 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 monthsAbsolute claudication distance improvement: evaluated by clinical interview and examination
Quality of life assessementat 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 monthsQuality of life assessed by the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ)
Costat 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 monthsCost at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months
Target extremity revascularizationat 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 monthsTarget extremity revascularization defined by any revascularization on vascular tree of the ipsilateral limb.

Countries

France

Contacts

Primary ContactRaphaël COSCAS, MD, PhD
raphael.coscas@aphp.fr+ 33 1 49 09 55 85

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026