ArticleCHEST pulmonary2025
A Comprehensive Approach to Lung Volume Reduction Encompassing Surgical and Endobronchial Treatment of Severe Emphysema.
Article in CHEST pulmonary, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Randomized controlled trials with lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) or endobronchial valves (EBVs) have shown clinically significant benefits for specific patients with emphysema. Research Question: What is the impact of a comprehensive lung volume reduction (LVR) program, with both LVRS and EBVs as treatment options, on patient selection and short- and long-term outcomes in real life? Study Design and Methods: This study summarizes the results of a prospective comprehensive LVR program in tertiary care, based on 5-year inclusions and follow-up over 1 to 3 years. Results: A total of 429 cases were discussed at a multidisciplinary emphysema board; of these, 131 (30%) were referred for LVRS, 73 (17%) were referred for EBV, 25 (6%) were referred for lung transplantation, and 200 (47%) were referred for usual care. A total of 38 (52%) of the EBV interventions were followed by a second to fourth intervention, including LVRS in 25 (34%). For LVRS first, 72 (55%) and 37 (38%) of patients had a single 1-stage bilateral or unilateral LVRS procedure, and 22 (17%) had a staged procedure. Clinically significant improvements between baseline and follow-up visits were obtained on all outcome dimensions in all LVRS and EBV groups for most of the visits. Responder rates varied between 50% and 80% at 3 months to 1 year and slowly declined in the second year. Transplant-free survival over 2.5 years, adjusted for age and BODE Index at baseline, was significantly better for the EBV intervention (hazard ratio, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04-0.44) and borderline significant for LVRS (hazard ratio, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.45-1.2) compared with the nonintervention group. Interpretation: LVR programs should cover both surgical and bronchoscopic interventions to maximize eligibility and to improve outcome and prognosis of highly symptomatic patients with severe 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.