ArticleThe Annals of thoracic surgery2025
Endobronchial Valve Therapy vs Lung Volume Reduction Surgery in the United States.
Article in The Annals of thoracic surgery, 2025. 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.
- Forty years between contralateral bullectomies for giant pulmonary bullae: a case report.AME case reports · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) and endobronchial valve (EBV) placement are therapeutic options in patients with advanced emphysema. This study sought to compare the 2 approaches by using a national data set.
methodsUsing the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Inpatient Claims Database, the study evaluated beneficiaries with severe emphysema who were undergoing either LVRS or an EBV procedure in accordance with Medicare reimbursement criteria. Doubly robust risk adjustment was performed using inverse probability weighting and multilevel regression models and competing-risk time-to-event analysis.
resultsLung volume reduction therapy was performed in 3219 patients: LVRS was performed in 2378 patients, and an EBV procedure was performed in 841. Before risk adjustment, patients undergoing an EBV procedure had lower Elixhauser comorbidity scores (3.37 vs 3.86; P < .001), shorter length of stay (4 days vs 7 days; P < .0001), and lower hospital charges ($124,540 vs $146,221; P < .0001) compared with patients who underwent LVRS. Most surgical procedures were minimally invasive (1897 video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery or robotic vs 481 open). After doubly-robust risk adjustment, the EBV procedure was associated with higher 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.68, 95% CI, 1.88-3.87; P < .001), higher 30-day readmission rate (adjusted OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63; P < .001), higher reintervention rate (adjusted OR, 17.2; 95% CI, 8.42-42.2; P < .001), and higher all-cause mortality at 1 year (adjusted OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.49-2.07; P < .001).
conclusionsMedicare beneficiaries who undergo EBV procedures have higher risk-adjusted mortality and procedure-related morbidity despite fewer comorbidities than patients undergoing LVRS. These results suggest the need to revisit multidisciplinary decision making regarding the role of surgery in the management of advanced emphysema.
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.