Observational studyInfection2026
Peri-interventional antibiotic prophylaxis in endoscopic valve implantation for lung volume reduction in COPD patients: results from a German multicenter observational cohort.
Observational study in Infection, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) using endobronchial valves is an established treatment for advanced COPD and emphysema. To reduce procedure-related complications such as pneumonia or exacerbations, peri-interventional antibiotic prophylaxis is commonly used; however, its clinical benefit remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the effect of different peri-interventional antibiotic strategies in a German COPD cohort.
methodsComparative analyses were performed using data from 900 patients enrolled in the multicentre, observational German Lung Emphysema Registry (LE-Registry). Patients were categorized by peri-interventional antibiotic strategy: single-dose prophylaxis, prolonged prophylaxis for 5-7 days, or no prophylaxis. Baseline characteristics, airway colonization, lung function, symptom burden, exercise capacity, and adverse events were assessed up to three months after ELVR.
resultsAmong 900 patients undergoing ELVR, 104 received single-dose prophylaxis, 344 prolonged 5-7-day prophylaxis, and 309 no antibiotic prophylaxis. Clinical improvements in lung function, symptom burden, and exercise capacity over three months were similar across all groups. Exacerbations occurred in 11.5% of patients receiving single-dose prophylaxis (12/104), 7.6% with prolonged prophylaxis (26/344), and 5.5% without prophylaxis (17/309; p = 0.12). Pneumonia was observed in 7.7% (8/104), 3.2% (11/344), and 3.2% (10/309), respectively (p = 0.087). Antibiotic-related adverse events were infrequent and mild, occurring only in the prolonged prophylaxis group.
conclusionPeri-interventional antibiotic prophylaxis, whether single-dose or prolonged, did not improve clinical outcomes or reduce complication rates following ELVR. These findings indicate limited clinical benefit and support a more targeted, indication-based use of antibiotics in this setting.
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.