Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39811547›Full record

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.

Jacopo Saccomanno, Lara Kilic, Thomas Sgarbossa, Konrad Neumann, Franz Stanzel, Angelique Holland, Christian Grah, Wolfgang Gesierich, Joanna Krist, Joachim H Ficker and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Limited Benefit of Additional ChartisInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025
    Article
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

19 authors.

Jacopo SaccomannoDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Respiratory Medicine and Critical Care, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0188-7541
Lara KilicDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Respiratory Medicine and Critical Care, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Thomas SgarbossaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Respiratory Medicine and Critical Care, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3393-8665
Konrad NeumannInstitute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Franz StanzelDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Lungenklinik Hemer, Hemer, Germany.
Angelique HollandDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Christian GrahDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Klinik Havelhöhe Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Wolfgang GesierichDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Asklepios Fachkliniken München-Gauting, Gautingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6707-6358
Joanna KristDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Lungenklinik Heckeshorn, Helios Klinikum Emil von Behring, Berlin, Germany.
Joachim H FickerDepartment of Internal Medicine 3/Respiratory Medicine, Klinikum Nuernberg, Paracelsus Medical University, Nuernberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7175-5852
Stephan EggelingDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Vivantes-Klinikum Neukölln, Berlin, Germany.
Stefan AndreasCenter of Respiratory Medicine, Lungenfachklinik Immenhausen, Immenhausen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3918-6909
Bernd SchmidtDepartment of Internal Medicine - Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, DRK Kliniken Berlin Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Stephan EisenmannDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Halle, Halle, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0387-0760
Björn SchwickDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Luisenhospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Karl-Josef FrankeDepartment of Respiratory Medicine and Critical Care Medicine, Klinikum Lüdenscheid, Lüdenscheid, Germany.
Andreas FertlDepartment of Internal Medicine and Respiratory Medicine, Krankenhaus Martha-Maria München, München, Germany.
Martin WitzenrathDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Respiratory Medicine and Critical Care, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Ralf-Harto HübnerDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Respiratory Medicine and Critical Care, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID39811547
PMCPMC11726540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.