MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410113769 · doi:10.2147/copd.s518270

Long Term Efficacy and Safety of Bronchoscopic Thermal Vapor Ablation in Patients with COPD: A Retrospective Study of 50 Patients

2025· article· en· W4410113769 on OpenAlexaff
Barak Pertzov, Merav Ben Avraham, Eldar Priel, Lev Freidkin, Dror Rosengarten, Mordechai R. Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of COPD · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDRetrospective cohort studyAblationTerm (time)BronchoscopyIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Bronchoscopic Thermal Vapor Ablation (BTVA) has demonstrated improvements in FEV1 and quality of life in clinical trials. However, the long-term benefits and overall efficacy of this procedure remain uncertain and are not yet fully established. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of all patients who underwent BTVA at Rabin Medical Center, Israel. The primary outcome was the change in FEV₁ from baseline. Secondary outcomes included other pulmonary function parameters and procedural adverse events. Results: A total of 50 patients were included in the study. The mean FEV1 values at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months post-procedure (n=31) were 0.74± 0.21 L, 0.93± 0.32 L, and 0.85± 0.25 L, respectively (overall P< 0.001; pairwise comparisons: baseline to 6 months, P< 0.001; baseline to 12 months, P=0.016). The mean FVC values at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months post-procedure (n=31) were 1.97± 0.56 L, 2.27± 0.71 L, and 2.14± 0.68 L, respectively (overall P=0.003; pairwise comparisons: baseline to 6 months, P=0.002; baseline to 12 months, P=0.125). Post-procedural complications included pneumonia in 5 patients (11%), of whom 3 developed necrotizing pneumonia and subsequently died, resulting in a 6% post-procedural mortality rate in the entire cohort. Hemoptysis was reported in 1 patient (2%). Conclusion: Bronchoscopic thermal vapor ablation is a minimally invasive bronchoscopic intervention for lung volume reduction. The procedure was associated with significant improvements in FEV₁ at 6 to 12 months and in FVC at 6 months, followed by a gradual decline over 12 to 24 months. Further research is warranted to optimize patient selection, enhance procedural safety, and assess long-term efficacy. Plain Language Summary: COPD is a disease that damages lung tissue. The damaged areas become hyperinflated, compressing healthier parts of the lung and reducing their function. Bronchoscopic Thermal Vapor Ablation (BTVA) is a minimally invasive treatment that uses heated water vapor to target and shrink these damaged areas. During the procedure, a thin tube with a camera (bronchoscope) is inserted into the lungs to deliver vapor directly to diseased regions. The vapor causes controlled injury, leading to shrinkage of the targeted tissue and allowing healthier lung areas to expand and function more effectively. BTVA can be repeated by treating different regions over time, potentially maintaining its benefits. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness and safety of BTVA in patients with advanced COPD. Lung function improved significantly at 6 and 12 months compared to baseline. Between 12 and 24 months, the benefits gradually declined but remained above baseline. Side effects were primarily pneumonia and temporary coughing up of blood, which resolved in most cases. However, three patients developed severe pneumonia and died, highlighting the need for further research. In conclusion, BTVA improved lung function, but careful selection of treatment areas and energy levels is important to reduce complications and enhance safety. Keywords: COPD, emphysema, BLVR, BTVA, vapor, FEV1, safety

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of COPDSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207