The clinical respiratory journal · 2021
Prevention of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease after bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with endobronchial valves.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abia-Trujillo David, Yu Lee-Mateus Alejandra, Garcia-Saucedo Juan C, Saifi Omran, Patel Neal M, Herth Felix J F, Woytanowski John R, Alshelli Ihab, Alevas Sajive, Uribe Becerra Juan P, Majid Adnan, Edell Eric S, Dulohery-Scrodin Megan M, Reisenauer Janani S, Mehta Hiren J, Jantz Michael A, Abbas Hawazin K, Fernandez-Bussy Sebastian
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with endobronchial valves (EBVs) has emerged as an important treatment method for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are a frequent complication following BLVR with EBV. However, there is no consensus on the prevention of AECOPD.
OBJECTIVES: Our study aims to compare the outcomes of different prophylactic measures on the occurrence of AECOPD after BLVR with EBV.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of patients who underwent BLVR with EBV at six different institutions. Emphasis was directed towards the specific practices aimed at preventing AECOPD: antibiotics, steroids, antibiotics plus steroids, or no prophylaxis. Subgroups were compared, and odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 170 patients were reviewed. The rate of AECOPD was 21.2% for the full cohort. Patients who received prophylaxis had a significantly lower rate of AECOPD compared with those who did not (16.7% vs. 46.2%; p = 0.001). The rate was lowest in patients who received antibiotics alone (9.2%). There was no significant difference in the rate of AECOPD between patients who received steroids alone or antibiotics plus steroids, compared with the other subgroups. The OR for AECOPD was 4.3 (95% CI: 1.8-10.4; p = 0.001) for patients not receiving prophylaxis and 3.9 (95% CI: 1.5-10.1; p = 0.004) for prophylaxis other than antibiotics alone.
CONCLUSIONS: Administration of antibiotics after BLVR with EBV was associated with a lower rate of AECOPD. This was not observed with the use of steroids or in combination with antibiotics.
OBJECTIVES: Our study aims to compare the outcomes of different prophylactic measures on the occurrence of AECOPD after BLVR with EBV.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of patients who underwent BLVR with EBV at six different institutions. Emphasis was directed towards the specific practices aimed at preventing AECOPD: antibiotics, steroids, antibiotics plus steroids, or no prophylaxis. Subgroups were compared, and odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 170 patients were reviewed. The rate of AECOPD was 21.2% for the full cohort. Patients who received prophylaxis had a significantly lower rate of AECOPD compared with those who did not (16.7% vs. 46.2%; p = 0.001). The rate was lowest in patients who received antibiotics alone (9.2%). There was no significant difference in the rate of AECOPD between patients who received steroids alone or antibiotics plus steroids, compared with the other subgroups. The OR for AECOPD was 4.3 (95% CI: 1.8-10.4; p = 0.001) for patients not receiving prophylaxis and 3.9 (95% CI: 1.5-10.1; p = 0.004) for prophylaxis other than antibiotics alone.
CONCLUSIONS: Administration of antibiotics after BLVR with EBV was associated with a lower rate of AECOPD. This was not observed with the use of steroids or in combination with antibiotics.