Imperial College London
Portrait Picture

ProfessorNickHopkinson

Faculty of Medicine, National Heart & Lung Institute

Professor of Respiratory Medicine
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

n.hopkinson

 
 
//

Location

 

Muscle LabSouth BlockRoyal Brompton Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Buttery:2023:10.1183/13993003.02063-2022,
author = {Buttery, SC and Banya, W and Bilancia, R and Boyd, E and Buckley, J and Greening, NJ and Housley, K and Jordan, S and Kemp, SV and Kirk, AJB and Latimer, L and Lau, K and Lawson, R and Lewis, A and Moxham, J and Rathinam, S and Steiner, MC and Tenconi, S and Waller, D and Shah, PL and Hopkinson, NS and CELEB, investigators},
doi = {10.1183/13993003.02063-2022},
journal = {European Respiratory Journal},
pages = {1--14},
title = {Lung volume reduction surgery versus endobronchial valves: a randomised controlled trial},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/13993003.02063-2022},
volume = {61},
year = {2023}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - 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 12months. 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 1year 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±7.7years, forced expiratory volume in 1s 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 12months 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.
AU  - Buttery,SC
AU  - Banya,W
AU  - Bilancia,R
AU  - Boyd,E
AU  - Buckley,J
AU  - Greening,NJ
AU  - Housley,K
AU  - Jordan,S
AU  - Kemp,SV
AU  - Kirk,AJB
AU  - Latimer,L
AU  - Lau,K
AU  - Lawson,R
AU  - Lewis,A
AU  - Moxham,J
AU  - Rathinam,S
AU  - Steiner,MC
AU  - Tenconi,S
AU  - Waller,D
AU  - Shah,PL
AU  - Hopkinson,NS
AU  - CELEB,investigators
DO  - 10.1183/13993003.02063-2022
EP  - 14
PY  - 2023///
SN  - 0903-1936
SP  - 1
TI  - Lung volume reduction surgery versus endobronchial valves: a randomised controlled trial
T2  - European Respiratory Journal
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/13993003.02063-2022
UR  - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36796833
UR  - https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/61/4/2202063
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/105055
VL  - 61
ER  -
Download