Bronchial Rheoplasty for Chronic Bronchitis: Results from a Canadian Feasibility Study with RheOx®
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marc Fortin,1 Del R Dorscheid,2 Moishe Liberman,3 Simon Martel,1 Tawimas Shaipanich2 1Department of Pulmonary Medicine and Thoracic Surgery, University of Laval Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec (IUCPQ), Quebec City, Quebec, Canada; 2Department of Medicine, St. Paul’s Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; 3Division of Thoracic Surgery, Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, CanadaCorrespondence: Marc Fortin, Department of Pulmonary Medicine and Thoracic Surgery, Quebec Heart and Lung Institute, Laval University, 2725 Chemin Sainte-Foy, Quebec City, QC, G1V 4G5, Canada, Tel +1 418-656-8711, Email marc.fortin@criucpq.ulaval.caPurpose: Chronic bronchitis (CB), a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) phenotype defined by persistent mucus hypersecretion and cough, is associated with poor quality of life, exacerbations, and lung function impairment. Bronchial Rheoplasty (BR) delivers non-thermal pulsed electric fields to airway epithelium and submucosa. Preliminary studies demonstrated reduced airway goblet cell hyperplasia and symptom improvement in response to BR. This study aimed to further assess the safety and clinical feasibility of BR in the setting of CB.Patients and Methods: This 3-center, single-arm study evaluated the safety and feasibility of BR in Canadian patients. The major inclusion criteria were the sum of CAT first 2 questions (cough and mucus) ≥ 7 out of 10 and FEV1 ≥ 30% predicted. Right-sided airways were treated first; left, 1 month later. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were tabulated through 12 months. Outcomes were evaluated using the SGRQ and CAT.Results: Ten patients with CB were enrolled and followed for 12 months. The BR procedure was successful in all patients (mean age 69 ± 5.8 years, post-BD FEV1 77.1 ± 28.3, SGRQ 56.2 ± 8.8, CAT 25.4 ± 4.7). Only one SAE, a COPD exacerbation 13 days following the BR procedure, was considered device related. No additional SAEs occurred through 12 months, and 90% of the patients were CAT responders (≥ 2-point improvement) at 3 and 6 months. Similar results were observed in SGRQ.Conclusion: BR was safe and well-tolerated. Meaningful symptom improvement was observed through 12 months, suggesting BR may be a viable treatment option for patients with CB.Keywords: chronic bronchitis, COPD, bronchoscopy, pulsed electric fields
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".