Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35525930›Full record

ArticleRespiratory research2022

Bilateral versus unilateral balloon pulmonary angioplasty for inoperable chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension.

Cheng Hong, Jianmin Lu, Xiaofeng Wu, Wenliang Guo, Jielong Lin, Riken Chen, Haimin Liu, Haiming Chen, Yongxia Lei, Jian Wang and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Respiratory research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Cheng Hong *State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0710-8757
Jianmin Lu *State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Xiaofeng Wu *State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Wenliang GuoState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jielong LinDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Riken ChenState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Haimin LiuState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Haiming ChenState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yongxia LeiDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jian WangState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yue ZhongState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Chunying ZhuangGuangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Xinlu WangState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 71Lu@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1997-5687

Funding

natural science foundation of guangdong province, china 2021A1515011373state key laboratory of respiratory diseases, china SKLRD-OP-202107Zhongnanshan Medical Foundation of Guangdong Province, China ZNSA-2020013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of bilateral balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) as compared with unilateral BPA for patients with inoperable chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).

methodWe reviewed 210 consecutive BPA sessions for 92 CTEPH patients, including 124 unilateral BPA sessions and 86 bilateral BPA sessions. Radiation exposure, operation details, lesions characteristics and the occurrence of complications were compared between unilateral BPA and bilateral BPA. 131 BPA sessions with a hemodynamics follow-up were included for efficacy analysis, in which hemodynamics changes were compared. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with the occurrence of complications.

resultBilateral BPA treated more lobes, arteries and lesions [3 (2, 4) vs. 2 (1, 3) lobes, p < 0.001; 8 (5.5, 10) vs. 6 (4, 8) vessels, p = 0.003; 9 (7, 12) vs. 8 (5, 10) lesions, p = 0.01] in one single session than unilateral BPA in a comparable operation duration and amount of contrast media given. Overall, the occurrence of complications was similar between bilateral BPA and unilateral BPA [9 (10.5%) vs. 12 (9.7%), p = 0.83]. Hemodynamics effects didn't differ significantly between bilateral BPA and unilateral BPA in a single session [mPAP, - 4.5 ± 8.6 vs. - 3.6 ± 7.3 mmHg, p = 0.52; PVR, - 1.1 (- 3.5, 0.8) vs. - 1.8 (- 5.2, 0.3) Wood units, p = 0.21]. For the initial BPA session, bilateral BPA also treated more lobes, arteries and lesions than unilateral BPA [3 (2, 4) vs. 2 (1, 2) lobes, p < 0.001; 8.0 (5.8, 9.3) vs. 6.0 (4.0, 8.0) vessels, p = 0.04; 9 (6, 12) vs. 7 (4, 10) lesions, p = 0.02]. The occurrence of complications was also similar [5 (13.2%) vs. 5 (9.3%), p = 0.80], even in patients with poor baseline hemodynamics. Univariate regression analysis reveals the number of lobes treated/session, but not bilateral BPA, as predictive factors of complications.

conclusionBilateral BPA may be safely and effectively performed in patients with CTEPH without increasing operation duration and radiation burden, even in patients with unfavorable baseline hemodynamics.

Indexed as

Angioplasty, BalloonHypertension, PulmonaryPulmonary EmbolismChronic DiseaseHumansPulmonary ArteryTreatment OutcomeBalloon pulmonary angioplastyChronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertensionComplicationTreatment

Identifiers

PMID35525930
PMCPMC9080167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.