ArticleERJ open research2025
Clinical improvements after endoscopic lung volume reduction with valves in patients with advanced emphysema and a 6-min walk test ≤140 m at baseline.
Article in ERJ open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Investigating sarcopenia and mucus plugging by chest computed tomography in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction with Valves Improves Cardiovascular Adaptability and 6-MWT Performance in Severely Limited COPD Patients.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Article
- Association of Mucus Plugging and Body Mass Index in Patients With Advanced COPD GOLD 3/4 With Emphysema.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2025Article
- Limited Benefit of Additional ChartisInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Data regarding the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic lung volume reduction with valves (ELVR) in emphysema patients with a very low 6-min walk test (6MWT) are limited. Patients with severe emphysema and very low exercise capacity, as indicated by a 6MWT ≤140 m, are often excluded from clinical studies on ELVR, assuming limited therapeutic benefits and increased complication risk. Study designs and methods: This study utilised data from the Lungenemphysemregister e.V., a large German national multi-centre prospective open-label clinical trial, and aimed to assess the outcomes of ELVR in patients with a baseline 6MWT ≤140 m and dyspnoea primarily attributed to hyperinflation. Results: 54 patients with a baseline 6MWT ≤140 m and 365 patients with a baseline 6MWT between 140 and 450 m were included in the study. Baseline characteristics were representative for patients with advanced lung emphysema. Patients with a 6MWT ≤140 m at baseline had a lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide and higher symptom burden. In the 3-month follow-up, patients of both groups showed statistically significant improvements in lung function parameters, exercise capacity and quality of life parameters compared to baseline. Patients with a 6MWT ≤140 m at baseline showed significantly more 6MWT improvement compared to patients with baseline 6MWT between 140 and 450 m. Moreover, complication rates were similar in both groups. Interpretation: In summary, the data indicate that ELVR may be an effective and safe treatment for emphysema patients with a very low 6MWT of ≤140 m if very limited exercise capacity is predominately caused by lung emphysema. Therefore future studies should include emphysema patients with a very low 6MWT.
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.