Bronchial artery revascularization in lung transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bronchial artery revascularization (BAR) during lung transplantation has been hypothesized to improve early tracheal healing and delay the onset of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS). We aimed to assess the outcomes of BAR after lung transplantation. Methods: Electronic search in Ovid Medline, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) databases was performed to identify all relevant studies published about lung transplantation with BAR. Studies discussing lung transplantation utilizing BAR were included while those without outcome data such as BOS and survival were excluded. Cohort-level data were extracted and pooled for analysis. A binary outcome meta-analysis of proportions with logit transformation was conducted. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for risk of bias assessment. Results: Seven studies were selected for the analysis comprising 143 patients. Mean patient age was 47 (95% CI: 40-55) years. Sixty-one percent (48-72%) were male. Seventy-three percent (65-79%) of patients underwent double lung transplant while 27% (21-25%) underwent single lung transplant. In patients with postoperative angiography, successful BAR was demonstrated in 93% (82-97%) of all assessed conduits. The 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 6% (3-11%). Seventy-nine percent (63-89%) of patients were free from rejection at three months. Eighty-three percent (29-98%) of patients were free from signs of airway ischemia at three and six months. Pooled survival at one year and five years was 87% (78-92%) and 71% (46-87%), respectively, with a mean follow-up time of 21 (3-38) months. Pooled freedom from bronchiolitis obliterans was 86% (77-91%) at two years. Conclusions: While this systematic review and meta-analysis is limited by the available surgeons, institutions, and papers discussing a highly specialized technique, it does show that BAR is a viable technique to minimize BOS and early anastomotic intervention following lung transplantation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".