Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 337

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy predictors of lung volume reduction with Zephyr valves in a European cohort

Open access
Herth, Felix J.F., Noppen, Marc, Valipour, Arschang, Leroy, Sylvie, Vergnon, Jean-Michel, Ficker, Joachim H., Egan, Jim J., Gasparini, Stefano, Agusti, Carlos, Holmes-Higgin, Debby, Ernst, Armin·2012·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

The Endobronchial Valve for Emphysema Palliation Trial (VENT) was a multi-centre, prospective, randomised, controlled trial conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of unilateral endobronchial valve (EBV) treatment. The purpose of this analysis was to assess outcomes in the previously unreported European VENT study cohort. Patients with advanced emphysema were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive Zephyr® (Pulmonx Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA) EBV treatment (n=111) or medical management (n=60). At 6 months, EBV patients demonstrated a significant improvement compared with the controls for mean±sd change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (7±20%versus 0.5±19%; p=0.067), cycle ergometry (2±14 W versus-3±10 W; p=0.04) and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (-5±14 points versus 0.3±13 points; p=0.047). At 12 months, the magnitude of the difference between groups for change from baseline was of similar magnitude to the differences seen at 6 months. Rates for complications did not differ significantly. EBV patients with computed tomography (CT) scans suggestive of complete fissure and lobar occlusion had a mean±sd lobar volume reduction of -80±30% and >50% met minimal clinical difference thresholds. The degree of emphysema heterogeneity did not preclude excellent outcomes. Unilateral lobar volume reduction using EBV treatment is safe and superior clinical results correlated with CT suggestive of complete fissures and successful lobar occlusion. Emphysema heterogeneity was not critical for determining positive outcomes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1183/09031936.00161611

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 337

Metadata

Authors
Herth, F. J. F., Noppen, M., Valipour, A., Leroy, S., Vergnon, J.-M., Ficker, J. H., Egan, J. J., Gasparini, S., Agusti, C., Holmes-Higgin, D., & Ernst, A.
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2012-01-26
Volume
39
Issue
6
Pages
1334-1342
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2100907959
Cited by
337
References
3
FWCI
27.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy predictors of lung volume reduction with Zephyr valves in a European cohort. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/09031936.00161611
The paper
Herth, F. J. F., Noppen, M., Valipour, A., Leroy, S., Vergnon, J.-M., Ficker, J. H., Egan, J. J., Gasparini, S., Agusti, C., Holmes-Higgin, D., & Ernst, A. (2012). Efficacy predictors of lung volume reduction with Zephyr valves in a European cohort. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00161611

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.