Observational studyInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2025
Long Term Efficacy and Safety of Bronchoscopic Thermal Vapor Ablation in Patients with COPD: A Retrospective Study of 50 Patients.
Observational study in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2025. 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.
- Efficacy and Safety of Broncho Muco Cleaner Balloon Dilation Therapy in Chronic Bronchitis-Predominant COPD: A Prospective Interventional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Research Progress and Comparative Evaluation of Three Cutting-Edge Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment Strategies: Biologics, Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction, and Stem Cell Therapies.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Review
- Short-Term Outcomes of Bronchoscopic Thermal Vapor Ablation in Patients with Severe COPD: A Case Series from a Single Chinese Center.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bronchoscopic Thermal Vapor Ablation (BTVA) has demonstrated improvements in FEV1 and quality of life in clinical trials. However, the long-term benefits and overall efficacy of this procedure remain uncertain and are not yet fully established. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of all patients who underwent BTVA at Rabin Medical Center, Israel. The primary outcome was the change in FEV₁ from baseline. Secondary outcomes included other pulmonary function parameters and procedural adverse events. Results: A total of 50 patients were included in the study. The mean FEV1 values at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months post-procedure (n=31) were 0.74±0.21 L, 0.93±0.32 L, and 0.85±0.25 L, respectively (overall P<0.001; pairwise comparisons: baseline to 6 months, P<0.001; baseline to 12 months, P=0.016). The mean FVC values at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months post-procedure (n=31) were 1.97±0.56 L, 2.27±0.71 L, and 2.14±0.68 L, respectively (overall P=0.003; pairwise comparisons: baseline to 6 months, P=0.002; baseline to 12 months, P=0.125). Post-procedural complications included pneumonia in 5 patients (11%), of whom 3 developed necrotizing pneumonia and subsequently died, resulting in a 6% post-procedural mortality rate in the entire cohort. Hemoptysis was reported in 1 patient (2%). Conclusion: Bronchoscopic thermal vapor ablation is a minimally invasive bronchoscopic intervention for lung volume reduction. The procedure was associated with significant improvements in FEV₁ at 6 to 12 months and in FVC at 6 months, followed by a gradual decline over 12 to 24 months. Further research is warranted to optimize patient selection, enhance procedural safety, and assess long-term efficacy.
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.