定量平台对支气管镜肺减容候选资格的影响:一项多中心回顾性队列研究。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Max Wayne, Suchitra Pilli, Hee Jae Choi, Nathaniel Moulton, Praveen Chenna, Allen Cole Burks, Alexander Chen
{"title":"定量平台对支气管镜肺减容候选资格的影响:一项多中心回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Max Wayne, Suchitra Pilli, Hee Jae Choi, Nathaniel Moulton, Praveen Chenna, Allen Cole Burks, Alexander Chen","doi":"10.1177/17534666251314724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) can be an effective treatment for highly selected patients with severe emphysema but only half of carefully selected patients derive clinical benefit. Two commercially available platforms exist to help determine candidacy for BLVR via quantitative analysis of computed tomography (CT) scans.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine if the two commercially available quantitative platforms identified the same patient population that may benefit from BLVR.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A multicenter, retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive patients referred for BLVR between January 1, 2022 and March 31, 2023 at three medical centers in the United States with the same CT scan submitted for quantitative analysis to two commercially available platforms to determine BLVR candidacy were analyzed. The primary outcome of interest was whether quantitative analysis provided different recommendations for individual patients. The recommendation to proceed with BLVR was based on a prespecified algorithm using criteria established in clinical trials for each quantitative platform, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 83 patients referred for BLVR across three centers were included; patients were a median 67 years old, had a median post bronchodilator FEV1 of 30% predicted (IQR: 25, 38), a median residual volume of 220% predicted (IQR: 185, 268), and 29 (34.9%) received endobronchial valves. A total of 26 patients (31.3%) received different recommendations from the two quantitative platforms.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this cohort of patients evaluated for BLVR across multiple medical centers, nearly a third of patients received different recommendations based on the platform utilized for valve assessment. This suggests that the selection process for BLVR may warrant refinement.</p>","PeriodicalId":22884,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease","volume":"19 ","pages":"17534666251314724"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11783484/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of quantitative platform on candidacy for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction: a multi-center retrospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Max Wayne, Suchitra Pilli, Hee Jae Choi, Nathaniel Moulton, Praveen Chenna, Allen Cole Burks, Alexander Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17534666251314724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) can be an effective treatment for highly selected patients with severe emphysema but only half of carefully selected patients derive clinical benefit. Two commercially available platforms exist to help determine candidacy for BLVR via quantitative analysis of computed tomography (CT) scans.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine if the two commercially available quantitative platforms identified the same patient population that may benefit from BLVR.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A multicenter, retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive patients referred for BLVR between January 1, 2022 and March 31, 2023 at three medical centers in the United States with the same CT scan submitted for quantitative analysis to two commercially available platforms to determine BLVR candidacy were analyzed. The primary outcome of interest was whether quantitative analysis provided different recommendations for individual patients. The recommendation to proceed with BLVR was based on a prespecified algorithm using criteria established in clinical trials for each quantitative platform, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 83 patients referred for BLVR across three centers were included; patients were a median 67 years old, had a median post bronchodilator FEV1 of 30% predicted (IQR: 25, 38), a median residual volume of 220% predicted (IQR: 185, 268), and 29 (34.9%) received endobronchial valves. A total of 26 patients (31.3%) received different recommendations from the two quantitative platforms.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this cohort of patients evaluated for BLVR across multiple medical centers, nearly a third of patients received different recommendations based on the platform utilized for valve assessment. This suggests that the selection process for BLVR may warrant refinement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22884,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"17534666251314724\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11783484/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17534666251314724\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17534666251314724","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:支气管镜下肺减容术(BLVR)对于高度选择性的严重肺气肿患者是一种有效的治疗方法,但只有一半的精心挑选的患者获得临床获益。有两个商业平台可以通过计算机断层扫描(CT)的定量分析来帮助确定BLVR的候选性。目的:确定两种市售定量平台是否确定了可能受益于BLVR的同一患者群体。设计:一项多中心回顾性队列研究。方法:对2022年1月1日至2023年3月31日期间在美国三家医疗中心连续转诊的BLVR患者进行分析,这些患者将相同的CT扫描提交给两个商业平台进行定量分析,以确定BLVR的候选性。主要研究结果是定量分析是否为个体患者提供了不同的建议。继续进行BLVR的建议是基于预先指定的算法,使用分别在每个定量平台的临床试验中建立的标准。结果:三个中心共纳入83例BLVR患者;患者的中位年龄为67岁,使用支气管扩张剂后预测FEV1的中位值为30% (IQR: 25,38),预测残气量的中位值为220% (IQR: 185,268), 29例(34.9%)接受支气管内瓣膜治疗。共有26例患者(31.3%)获得了两个定量平台的不同推荐。结论:在多个医疗中心进行BLVR评估的患者队列中,近三分之一的患者根据用于瓣膜评估的平台收到了不同的建议。这表明BLVR的选择过程可能需要改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The impact of quantitative platform on candidacy for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction: a multi-center retrospective cohort study.

Background: Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) can be an effective treatment for highly selected patients with severe emphysema but only half of carefully selected patients derive clinical benefit. Two commercially available platforms exist to help determine candidacy for BLVR via quantitative analysis of computed tomography (CT) scans.

Objectives: To determine if the two commercially available quantitative platforms identified the same patient population that may benefit from BLVR.

Design: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

Methods: Consecutive patients referred for BLVR between January 1, 2022 and March 31, 2023 at three medical centers in the United States with the same CT scan submitted for quantitative analysis to two commercially available platforms to determine BLVR candidacy were analyzed. The primary outcome of interest was whether quantitative analysis provided different recommendations for individual patients. The recommendation to proceed with BLVR was based on a prespecified algorithm using criteria established in clinical trials for each quantitative platform, respectively.

Results: A total of 83 patients referred for BLVR across three centers were included; patients were a median 67 years old, had a median post bronchodilator FEV1 of 30% predicted (IQR: 25, 38), a median residual volume of 220% predicted (IQR: 185, 268), and 29 (34.9%) received endobronchial valves. A total of 26 patients (31.3%) received different recommendations from the two quantitative platforms.

Conclusion: In this cohort of patients evaluated for BLVR across multiple medical centers, nearly a third of patients received different recommendations based on the platform utilized for valve assessment. This suggests that the selection process for BLVR may warrant refinement.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies across all areas of respiratory disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信