Site Loader

We followed the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for this meta-analysis 5.Search StrategyLiterature
search was performed using PubMed, COCHRANE database, OVID, and Google
Scholar using the following search terms: bronchoscopic lung volume
reduction, lung volume reduction coils, coils, lung volume reduction
valves, endobronchial valves, one-way valves, lung volume reduction
sealants, bronchial thermal vapor ablation, lung sealants, biological
lung volume reduction, BioLVR, endobronchial occluder, and emphysema. We
also manually searched references of the recently published relevant
articles. The last literature search was performed on 06/15/2016.Study Eligibility and Exclusion CriteriaAll
published human BLVR trials in English were considered for inclusion.
Case series, prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies,
and randomized controlled trials were included. The outcomes of interest
were forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), 6-min walk test (6MWT),
and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Since multiple valve
trials have already shown disappointing results in patients without
intact interlobar fissures 6, 7, 8,
and current studies are only including patients with intact fissures,
we analyzed the valve data only from those patients with intact
fissures.Case reports and studies with
follow-up duration less than 6 months were excluded. Smaller
publications from individual centers of a multicenter study were
excluded. If two publications shared study subjects, the article with
the smaller number of subjects or with smaller duration of follow-up was
excluded to avoid duplication. We also excluded studies where the BLVR
modalities were used for diseases other than COPD (e.g., valves for
giant emphysematous bullae and persistent air leak).Outcomes of InterestOur
primary outcome of interest was an absolute change in FEV1 (liters).
Secondary outcomes were changes in 6MWT (meters) and SGRQ (points). The
minimal clinically important difference (MCID) used to ascertain a
clinically significant change was predetermined as follows:
FEV1 ? 0.10 L or ?12% 9, 6MWT ? 26 m 10, and SGRQ ? 4 points 11.
We broadly reviewed the major complications of each BLVR modality. A
detailed systematic review of the complications is beyond the scope of
this study.Data AbstractionWe
abstracted data for FEV1, 6MWT, and SGRQ. Before and after
intervention, absolute mean difference ± SD for each variable was
recorded at 6 and 12 months (when available). Only the intervention arm
data were abstracted for the trials that had between group comparisons
with intervention and control arms. The number of MCID responders in
each study was also abstracted if data was reported in the full text
article or supplementary material. For the meta-analysis, in studies
where the standard deviation of the mean difference was not provided, we
imputed the mean value of the standard deviation for that variable
within the same BLVR modality 12.
Two authors (AK and MJM) independently performed literature search and
data abstraction. There were no between-reviewer disagreements on study
selection and final data synthesis.Assessment of the Risk of BiasThe Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the quality of reporting of the included studies 12.Data AnalysisPooled
estimates of absolute change from baseline and their 95% confidence
intervals (CI) were derived for each variable of interest at 6-months
interval when data from ?3 studies was available. We used
OpenMetaAnalyst software to pool data. Owing to significant variability
between studies, we used the random effects model.

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Rhonda!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out