ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2022
Bronchial artery revascularization in lung transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revascularisation of the bronchial arteries in pulmonary transplant; does it ever have a role?Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bronchial artery revascularization (BAR) during lung transplantation has been hypothesized to improve early tracheal healing and delay the onset of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS). We aimed to assess the outcomes of BAR after lung transplantation. Methods: Electronic search in Ovid Medline, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) databases was performed to identify all relevant studies published about lung transplantation with BAR. Studies discussing lung transplantation utilizing BAR were included while those without outcome data such as BOS and survival were excluded. Cohort-level data were extracted and pooled for analysis. A binary outcome meta-analysis of proportions with logit transformation was conducted. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for risk of bias assessment. Results: Seven studies were selected for the analysis comprising 143 patients. Mean patient age was 47 (95% CI: 40-55) years. Sixty-one percent (48-72%) were male. Seventy-three percent (65-79%) of patients underwent double lung transplant while 27% (21-25%) underwent single lung transplant. In patients with postoperative angiography, successful BAR was demonstrated in 93% (82-97%) of all assessed conduits. The 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 6% (3-11%). Seventy-nine percent (63-89%) of patients were free from rejection at three months. Eighty-three percent (29-98%) of patients were free from signs of airway ischemia at three and six months. Pooled survival at one year and five years was 87% (78-92%) and 71% (46-87%), respectively, with a mean follow-up time of 21 (3-38) months. Pooled freedom from bronchiolitis obliterans was 86% (77-91%) at two years. Conclusions: While this systematic review and meta-analysis is limited by the available surgeons, institutions, and papers discussing a highly specialized technique, it does show that BAR is a viable technique to minimize BOS and early anastomotic intervention following lung transplantation.
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.