| Title |
Endoscopic bronchial valve treatment: patient selection and special considerations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s63473 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ralf Eberhardt, Daniela Gompelmann, Felix JF Herth, Maren Schuhmann |
| Abstract |
As well as lung volume reduction surgery, different minimally invasive endoscopic techniques are available to achieve lung volume reduction in patients with severe emphysema and significant hyperinflation. Lung function parameters and comorbidities of the patient, as well as the extent and distribution of the emphysema are factors to be considered when choosing the patient and the intervention. Endoscopic bronchial valve placement with complete occlusion of one lobe in patients with heterogeneous emphysema is the preferred technique because of its reversibility. The presence of high interlobar collateral ventilation will hinder successful treatment; therefore, endoscopic coil placement, polymeric lung volume reduction, or bronchoscopic thermal vapor ablation as well as lung volume reduction surgery can be used for treating patients with incomplete fissures. The effect of endoscopic lung volume reduction in patients with a homogeneous distribution of emphysema is still unclear and this subgroup should be treated only in clinical trials. Precise patient selection is necessary for interventions and to improve the outcome and reduce the risk and possible complications. Therefore, the patients should be discussed in a multidisciplinary approach prior to determining the most appropriate treatment for lung volume reduction. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Researcher | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 13 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 54% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 15 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2015.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,485
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,468
of 286,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#60
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.