肺气肿患者肺减容治疗:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Liyan Bo, Xu He, Yan Chen, Liang Shi, Congcong Li
{"title":"肺气肿患者肺减容治疗:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Liyan Bo, Xu He, Yan Chen, Liang Shi, Congcong Li","doi":"10.1080/15412555.2025.2567022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Severe emphysema, a major chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) phenotype characterized by hyperinflation, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Lung volume reduction (LVR) therapies, including surgical (LVRS) and bronchoscopic techniques (e.g. endobronchial valves (EBVs) and coils (ECs)), aim to reduce hyperinflation and improve outcomes, but their comparative efficacy and safety are unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This network meta-analysis compared LVR therapies. We systematically evaluated LVRS, EBV, EC, intrabronchial valves (IBV), sealants (ELS), vapor ablation (BVA), or airway bypass stents (ABS) in adults with severe emphysema. The primary outcomes were early and overall mortality. The secondary outcomes included lung function (FEV1, RV reduction), exercise capacity (6MWD), quality of life (SGRQ), and adverse events. Bayesian analysis using R/BUGSNet was used to assess their effects and rankings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-six RCTs (4418 patients) were included. No LVR therapy significantly reduced mortality compared with standard medical care (SMC) (early mortality, 1.6%; overall mortality, 10.9%; and highest rates of LVRS). Compared with SMC, LVRS and EBV significantly improved FEV1, RV reduction, and the 6MWD; LVRS consistently ranked most effectively. After excluding the impact of collateral ventilation in the subgroup analysis, EC significantly improved the SGRQ and 6MWD, and a reduction in residual volume and IBV improved the SGRQ. LVRS, EBV, and EC had significantly higher adverse event rates than SMC did.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While no LVR therapy improved survival over SMC, LVRS and some bronchoscopic techniques (EBV, EC) significantly enhanced lung function, exercise capacity, and quality of life in severe emphysema patients. LVRS offers the greatest efficacy benefits but carries the highest risks. Bronchoscopic options (EBV, EC) provide safer and more effective alternatives, particularly for symptoms and functional improvement. Careful patient selection on the basis of fissure status and emphysema pattern is paramount.</p>","PeriodicalId":10704,"journal":{"name":"COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","volume":"22 1","pages":"2567022"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lung Volume Reduction Therapies in Patients with Emphysema: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Liyan Bo, Xu He, Yan Chen, Liang Shi, Congcong Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15412555.2025.2567022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Severe emphysema, a major chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) phenotype characterized by hyperinflation, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Lung volume reduction (LVR) therapies, including surgical (LVRS) and bronchoscopic techniques (e.g. endobronchial valves (EBVs) and coils (ECs)), aim to reduce hyperinflation and improve outcomes, but their comparative efficacy and safety are unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This network meta-analysis compared LVR therapies. We systematically evaluated LVRS, EBV, EC, intrabronchial valves (IBV), sealants (ELS), vapor ablation (BVA), or airway bypass stents (ABS) in adults with severe emphysema. The primary outcomes were early and overall mortality. The secondary outcomes included lung function (FEV1, RV reduction), exercise capacity (6MWD), quality of life (SGRQ), and adverse events. Bayesian analysis using R/BUGSNet was used to assess their effects and rankings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-six RCTs (4418 patients) were included. No LVR therapy significantly reduced mortality compared with standard medical care (SMC) (early mortality, 1.6%; overall mortality, 10.9%; and highest rates of LVRS). Compared with SMC, LVRS and EBV significantly improved FEV1, RV reduction, and the 6MWD; LVRS consistently ranked most effectively. After excluding the impact of collateral ventilation in the subgroup analysis, EC significantly improved the SGRQ and 6MWD, and a reduction in residual volume and IBV improved the SGRQ. LVRS, EBV, and EC had significantly higher adverse event rates than SMC did.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While no LVR therapy improved survival over SMC, LVRS and some bronchoscopic techniques (EBV, EC) significantly enhanced lung function, exercise capacity, and quality of life in severe emphysema patients. LVRS offers the greatest efficacy benefits but carries the highest risks. Bronchoscopic options (EBV, EC) provide safer and more effective alternatives, particularly for symptoms and functional improvement. Careful patient selection on the basis of fissure status and emphysema pattern is paramount.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"2567022\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15412555.2025.2567022\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/10/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15412555.2025.2567022","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:严重肺气肿是一种主要的慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)表型,其特征为恶性通货膨胀,与显著的发病率和死亡率相关。肺减容(LVR)治疗,包括手术(LVRS)和支气管镜技术(如支气管内瓣膜(ebv)和线圈(ECs)),旨在减少恶性充气和改善预后,但其相对疗效和安全性尚不清楚。方法:该网络荟萃分析比较了LVR疗法。我们系统地评估了LVRS、EBV、EC、支气管内瓣膜(IBV)、密封剂(ELS)、蒸汽消融(BVA)或气道旁路支架(ABS)在成人严重肺气肿中的应用。主要结局是早期死亡率和总死亡率。次要结局包括肺功能(FEV1、RV减少)、运动能力(6MWD)、生活质量(SGRQ)和不良事件。使用R/BUGSNet进行贝叶斯分析,评估其效果和排名。结果:纳入26项rct(4418例患者)。与标准医疗护理(SMC)相比,无LVR治疗显著降低了死亡率(早期死亡率1.6%;总死亡率10.9%;LVRS率最高)。与SMC相比,LVRS和EBV显著提高了FEV1、RV降低和6MWD;LVRS一直排名最有效。在亚组分析中排除侧支通气的影响后,EC显著改善了SGRQ和6MWD,减少残气量和IBV改善了SGRQ。LVRS、EBV和EC的不良事件发生率明显高于SMC。结论:虽然LVR治疗没有改善SMC患者的生存,但LVRS和一些支气管镜技术(EBV, EC)可显著提高严重肺气肿患者的肺功能,运动能力和生活质量。LVRS提供最大的疗效效益,但风险最高。支气管镜选择(EBV, EC)提供了更安全、更有效的选择,特别是在症状和功能改善方面。根据裂隙状态和肺气肿类型仔细选择患者是至关重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lung Volume Reduction Therapies in Patients with Emphysema: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Background: Severe emphysema, a major chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) phenotype characterized by hyperinflation, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Lung volume reduction (LVR) therapies, including surgical (LVRS) and bronchoscopic techniques (e.g. endobronchial valves (EBVs) and coils (ECs)), aim to reduce hyperinflation and improve outcomes, but their comparative efficacy and safety are unclear.

Methods: This network meta-analysis compared LVR therapies. We systematically evaluated LVRS, EBV, EC, intrabronchial valves (IBV), sealants (ELS), vapor ablation (BVA), or airway bypass stents (ABS) in adults with severe emphysema. The primary outcomes were early and overall mortality. The secondary outcomes included lung function (FEV1, RV reduction), exercise capacity (6MWD), quality of life (SGRQ), and adverse events. Bayesian analysis using R/BUGSNet was used to assess their effects and rankings.

Results: Twenty-six RCTs (4418 patients) were included. No LVR therapy significantly reduced mortality compared with standard medical care (SMC) (early mortality, 1.6%; overall mortality, 10.9%; and highest rates of LVRS). Compared with SMC, LVRS and EBV significantly improved FEV1, RV reduction, and the 6MWD; LVRS consistently ranked most effectively. After excluding the impact of collateral ventilation in the subgroup analysis, EC significantly improved the SGRQ and 6MWD, and a reduction in residual volume and IBV improved the SGRQ. LVRS, EBV, and EC had significantly higher adverse event rates than SMC did.

Conclusions: While no LVR therapy improved survival over SMC, LVRS and some bronchoscopic techniques (EBV, EC) significantly enhanced lung function, exercise capacity, and quality of life in severe emphysema patients. LVRS offers the greatest efficacy benefits but carries the highest risks. Bronchoscopic options (EBV, EC) provide safer and more effective alternatives, particularly for symptoms and functional improvement. Careful patient selection on the basis of fissure status and emphysema pattern is paramount.

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
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: From pathophysiology and cell biology to pharmacology and psychosocial impact, COPD: Journal Of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease publishes a wide range of original research, reviews, case studies, and conference proceedings to promote advances in the pathophysiology, diagnosis, management, and control of lung and airway disease and inflammation - providing a unique forum for the discussion, design, and evaluation of more efficient and effective strategies in patient care.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信