ArticleLung2020
Screening for Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction: Reasons for Not Receiving Interventional Treatment.
Article in Lung, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multidisciplinary Evaluation for COPD Management.Respiratory care · 2025Article
- Implementation of Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction Using One-Way Endobronchial Valves: A Retrospective Single-Centre Cohort Study.Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2022Article
- LUNG Year in Review: 2020.Lung · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) is based on phase 2 studies and small randomized controlled trials with in- and exclusion criteria defining a therapeutic window and contraindications. Little is known about the applicability in routine clinical practice.
aimWhich percentage of patients with severe emphysema referred to a specialized treatment center for BLVR is ultimately suitable for interventional bronchoscopic treatment? What is the relevance of the different contraindications?
methodsRetrospective evaluation of emphysema patients referred to Asklepios Fachkliniken Munich-Gauting for BLVR between January 2014 and June 2015.
results138 patients were referred for evaluation of BLVR. 38 patients (27.5%) underwent BLVR procedures (valves n = 18; coils n = 18; thermal vapor ablation n = 2). 100 patients (72.5%) were deemed not eligible for BLVR based on the following contraindications: 34% emphysema morphology and emphysema-related findings (severe homogeneous emphysema, extensive pleuropulmonary adhesions, postinflammatory scaring with natural volume reduction, giant bullae), 16% active smoking; 9% pulmonary function not within indication range; 8% unexpected CT findings (nodules, cancer, interstitial disease); 8% chronic ventilatory failure; 8% patient refused BLVR; 5% relevant comorbidity; 5% frequent exacerbations, 3% preserved quality of life, 4% other.
conclusionBLVR is a therapeutic option for highly selected patients. In our cohort, one in four could be treated. These data highlight the limitations of BLVR under real-life conditions.
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.