Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Lung Volume Reduction Surgery

Electronic data

  • 131019 NETT Re-analysis manuscript

    Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Annals of Thoracic Surgery. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 109, 5, 2020 DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.11.018

    Accepted author manuscript, 250 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Lung Volume Reduction Surgery: Reinterpreted With Longitudinal Data Analyses Methodology

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

E-pub ahead of print
Close
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>28/12/2019
<mark>Journal</mark>Annals of Thoracic Surgery
Issue number5
Volume109
Number of pages6
Pages (from-to)1496-1501
Publication StatusE-pub ahead of print
Early online date28/12/19
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

Background: The largest randomised controlled trial evaluating results of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) was conducted by the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) that published a series of reports for outcomes up to 24 months. However, patient outcomes were difficult to interpret due to limitations in and the presentation of conventional statistical analyses applied to longitudinal data. We reevaluated the NETT results using longitudinal data methodology to report longer-term outcomes to facilitate interpretation by clinicians and patients who are considering LVRS for emphysema management. Methods: Trial data were released by the United States National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and analyzed using a mixed-effects model. Data on the difference in lung function variables between patients receiving LVRS vs medical care out to 5 years were estimated and are presented. Results: The 5-year differences in patients randomised to LVRS were a small but sustained improvement in lung function indicators of forced expiratory volume in 1 second, forced vital capacity, and residual volume of +1.4% (P

Bibliographic note

This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Annals of Thoracic Surgery. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 109, 5, 2020 DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.11.018