1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    recommends
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Lung volume reduction surgery versus endobronchial valves: a randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with endobronchial valves can improve outcomes in appropriately selected patients with emphysema. However, no direct comparison data exist to inform clinical decision making in people who appear suitable for both procedures. Our aim was to investigate whether LVRS produces superior health outcomes when compared with BLVR at 12 months.

          Methods

          This multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group trial randomised patients from five UK hospitals, who were suitable for a targeted lung volume reduction procedure, to either LVRS or BLVR and compared outcomes at 1 year using the i-BODE score. This composite disease severity measure includes body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnoea and exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walk test). The researchers responsible for collecting outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. All outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population.

          Results

          88 participants (48% female, mean± sd age 64.6±7.7 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent predicted 31.0±7.9%) were recruited at five specialist centres across the UK and randomised to either LVRS (n=41) or BLVR (n=47). At 12 months follow-up, the complete i-BODE was available in 49 participants (21 LVRS/28 BLVR). Neither improvement in the i-BODE score (LVRS −1.10±1.44 versus BLVR −0.82±1.61; p=0.54) nor in its individual components differed between groups. Both treatments produced similar improvements in gas trapping (residual volume percent predicted: LVRS −36.1% (95% CI −54.6– −10%) versus BLVR −30.1% (95% CI −53.7– −9%); p=0.81). There was one death in each treatment arm.

          Conclusion

          Our findings do not support the hypothesis that LVRS is a substantially superior treatment to BLVR in individuals who are suitable for both treatments.

          Abstract

          In this first randomised study to compare lung volume reduction surgery and endobronchial valve placement in people who are suitable for both treatments, surgery did not produce substantially superior outcomes at 1 year post-procedure http://bit.ly/3D0DjoN

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.

          Reliable and timely information on the leading causes of death in populations, and how these are changing, is a crucial input into health policy debates. In the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2010 (GBD 2010), we aimed to estimate annual deaths for the world and 21 regions between 1980 and 2010 for 235 causes, with uncertainty intervals (UIs), separately by age and sex. We attempted to identify all available data on causes of death for 187 countries from 1980 to 2010 from vital registration, verbal autopsy, mortality surveillance, censuses, surveys, hospitals, police records, and mortuaries. We assessed data quality for completeness, diagnostic accuracy, missing data, stochastic variations, and probable causes of death. We applied six different modelling strategies to estimate cause-specific mortality trends depending on the strength of the data. For 133 causes and three special aggregates we used the Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm) approach, which uses four families of statistical models testing a large set of different models using different permutations of covariates. Model ensembles were developed from these component models. We assessed model performance with rigorous out-of-sample testing of prediction error and the validity of 95% UIs. For 13 causes with low observed numbers of deaths, we developed negative binomial models with plausible covariates. For 27 causes for which death is rare, we modelled the higher level cause in the cause hierarchy of the GBD 2010 and then allocated deaths across component causes proportionately, estimated from all available data in the database. For selected causes (African trypanosomiasis, congenital syphilis, whooping cough, measles, typhoid and parathyroid, leishmaniasis, acute hepatitis E, and HIV/AIDS), we used natural history models based on information on incidence, prevalence, and case-fatality. We separately estimated cause fractions by aetiology for diarrhoea, lower respiratory infections, and meningitis, as well as disaggregations by subcause for chronic kidney disease, maternal disorders, cirrhosis, and liver cancer. For deaths due to collective violence and natural disasters, we used mortality shock regressions. For every cause, we estimated 95% UIs that captured both parameter estimation uncertainty and uncertainty due to model specification where CODEm was used. We constrained cause-specific fractions within every age-sex group to sum to total mortality based on draws from the uncertainty distributions. In 2010, there were 52·8 million deaths globally. At the most aggregate level, communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional causes were 24·9% of deaths worldwide in 2010, down from 15·9 million (34·1%) of 46·5 million in 1990. This decrease was largely due to decreases in mortality from diarrhoeal disease (from 2·5 to 1·4 million), lower respiratory infections (from 3·4 to 2·8 million), neonatal disorders (from 3·1 to 2·2 million), measles (from 0·63 to 0·13 million), and tetanus (from 0·27 to 0·06 million). Deaths from HIV/AIDS increased from 0·30 million in 1990 to 1·5 million in 2010, reaching a peak of 1·7 million in 2006. Malaria mortality also rose by an estimated 19·9% since 1990 to 1·17 million deaths in 2010. Tuberculosis killed 1·2 million people in 2010. Deaths from non-communicable diseases rose by just under 8 million between 1990 and 2010, accounting for two of every three deaths (34·5 million) worldwide by 2010. 8 million people died from cancer in 2010, 38% more than two decades ago; of these, 1·5 million (19%) were from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer. Ischaemic heart disease and stroke collectively killed 12·9 million people in 2010, or one in four deaths worldwide, compared with one in five in 1990; 1·3 million deaths were due to diabetes, twice as many as in 1990. The fraction of global deaths due to injuries (5·1 million deaths) was marginally higher in 2010 (9·6%) compared with two decades earlier (8·8%). This was driven by a 46% rise in deaths worldwide due to road traffic accidents (1·3 million in 2010) and a rise in deaths from falls. Ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), lower respiratory infections, lung cancer, and HIV/AIDS were the leading causes of death in 2010. Ischaemic heart disease, lower respiratory infections, stroke, diarrhoeal disease, malaria, and HIV/AIDS were the leading causes of years of life lost due to premature mortality (YLLs) in 2010, similar to what was estimated for 1990, except for HIV/AIDS and preterm birth complications. YLLs from lower respiratory infections and diarrhoea decreased by 45-54% since 1990; ischaemic heart disease and stroke YLLs increased by 17-28%. Regional variations in leading causes of death were substantial. Communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional causes still accounted for 76% of premature mortality in sub-Saharan Africa in 2010. Age standardised death rates from some key disorders rose (HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease in particular), but for most diseases, death rates fell in the past two decades; including major vascular diseases, COPD, most forms of cancer, liver cirrhosis, and maternal disorders. For other conditions, notably malaria, prostate cancer, and injuries, little change was noted. Population growth, increased average age of the world's population, and largely decreasing age-specific, sex-specific, and cause-specific death rates combine to drive a broad shift from communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional causes towards non-communicable diseases. Nevertheless, communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional causes remain the dominant causes of YLLs in sub-Saharan Africa. Overlaid on this general pattern of the epidemiological transition, marked regional variation exists in many causes, such as interpersonal violence, suicide, liver cancer, diabetes, cirrhosis, Chagas disease, African trypanosomiasis, melanoma, and others. Regional heterogeneity highlights the importance of sound epidemiological assessments of the causes of death on a regular basis. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice

            Multiple imputation by chained equations is a flexible and practical approach to handling missing data. We describe the principles of the method and show how to impute categorical and quantitative variables, including skewed variables. We give guidance on how to specify the imputation model and how many imputations are needed. We describe the practical analysis of multiply imputed data, including model building and model checking. We stress the limitations of the method and discuss the possible pitfalls. We illustrate the ideas using a data set in mental health, giving Stata code fragments. 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

              Widespread application of pulmonary rehabilitation (also known as respiratory rehabilitation) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be preceded by demonstrable improvements in function (health-related quality of life, functional and maximal exercise capacity) attributable to the programmes. This review updates the review reported in 2006.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur Respir J
                Eur Respir J
                ERJ
                erj
                The European Respiratory Journal
                European Respiratory Society
                0903-1936
                1399-3003
                April 2023
                27 April 2023
                : 61
                : 4
                : 2202063
                Affiliations
                [1 ]National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
                [2 ]Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, London, UK
                [3 ]Department of Thoracic Surgery, West of Scotland Regional Heart and Lung Centre, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Glasgow, UK
                [4 ]Department of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
                [5 ]Institute for Lung Health, National Institute for Health Research Leicester Biomedical Research Centre – Respiratory, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK
                [6 ]Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK
                [7 ]St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK
                [8 ]Department of Health Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK
                [9 ]King's College, London, UK
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Nicholas S. Hopkinson ( n.hopkinson@ 123456ic.ac.uk )
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6639-0166
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2860-8619
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0576-8823
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3235-0454
                Article
                ERJ-02063-2022
                10.1183/13993003.02063-2022
                10133584
                36796833
                bb047045-68c6-4ab0-9043-f6097a3aeed9
                Copyright ©The authors 2023.

                This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence 4.0.

                History
                : 26 October 2022
                : 13 January 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Imperial College London, doi 10.13039/501100000761;
                Categories
                Original Research Articles
                COPD
                1

                Respiratory medicine
                Respiratory medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article