Table 1. Summary of the major studies of EBV insertion for PAL.
| Lead author, year | Study design | Number of patients receiving EBVa | Valve type | Valves/patient (mean ± SD or median) | Procedural success rate (%)b | Time to pleural drain removalc (mean ± SD or median days) | Valve retrieval rate (% of subjects) | Procedural complication rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Travaline 2009 (28) | Retrospective | 40 | Zephyr® | 2.9±1.9 | 93 | 7.5 | 20 | 15 |
| Gillespie 2011 (29) | Retrospective | 7 | Spiration® | 3.5 | 75 | 16 | 71 | 0 |
| Firlinger 2013 (30) | Prospective | 13/19 | Both | 1.4±0.7 | 77 | 7.6±5 | 83 | 0 |
| Dooms 2014 (31) | Prospective | 9/10 | Spiration® | 4 | 67 | 4 | 100 | 0 |
| Gilbert 2016 (32) | Retrospective | 75/112 | Spiration® | 2 | 56d | 4 | NR | 3 |
NR, not reported. a, total number of patients evaluated for EBV placement provided after slash where applicable; b, procedural success is generally defined as rapid resolution and/or diminution of air leak following the intervention; c, time following EBV implantation; d, data not available for all patients.