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
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Lung Volume Reduction Surgery
T2 - Reinterpreted With Longitudinal Data Analyses Methodology
AU - Lim, E.
AU - Sousa, I.
AU - Shah, P.L.
AU - Diggle, P.
AU - Goldstraw, P.
N1 - 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
PY - 2019/12/28
Y1 - 2019/12/28
N2 - 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
AB - 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
U2 - 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.11.018
DO - 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.11.018
M3 - Journal article
VL - 109
SP - 1496
EP - 1501
JO - Annals of Thoracic Surgery
JF - Annals of Thoracic Surgery
SN - 0003-4975
IS - 5
ER -