Lung volume reduction surgery for diffuse emphysema.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: van Agteren JE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6461146 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:RationaleTo determine the effect of medical treatment versus lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) on pulmonary hemodynamics.MethodsThree clinical centers of the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) screened patients for additional inclusion into a cardiovascular (CV) substudy. Demographics were determined, and lung function testing, six-minute-walk distance, and maximum cardiopulmonary exercise testing were done at baseline and 6 months after medical therapy or LVRS. CV substudy patients underwent right heart catheterization at rest prerandomization (baseline) and 6 months after treatment.Measurements and main resultsA total of 110 of the 163 patients evaluated for the CV substudy were randomized in NETT (53 were ineligible), 54 to medical treatment and 56 to LVRS. Fifty-five of these patients had both baseline and repeat right heart catheterization 6 months postrandomization. Baseline demographics and lung function data revealed CV substudy patients to be similar to the remaining 1,163 randomized NETT patients in terms of age, sex, FEV(1), residual volume, diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide, Pa(O(2)), Pa(CO(2)), and six-minute-walk distance. CV substudy patients had moderate pulmonary hypertension at rest (Ppa, 24.8 +/- 4.9 mm Hg); baseline hemodynamic measurements were similar across groups. Changes from baseline pressures to 6 months post-treatment were similar across treatment groups, except for a smaller change in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure at end-expiration post-LVRS compared with medical treatment (-1.8 vs. 3.5 mm Hg, p = 0.04).ConclusionsIn comparison to medical therapy, LVRS was not associated with an increase in pulmonary artery pressures.
| S-EPMC1994220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Long-term effects of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) on respiratory muscle strength and effects of age, sex, and emphysema pattern on these changes are unknown. Therefore, we aimed to determine the long-term effect of LVRS on respiratory muscle strength changes in severe emphysema. Methods: The National Emphysema Treatment Trial was a prospective controlled multicentered trial, comparing LVRS to optimal medical treatment on survival and maximal exercise capacity. We examined percentage change in maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP) from baseline to 36 months follow-up to determine impact of LVRS as well as age, sex, emphysema pattern and exercise capacity on changes in MIP compared to medical treatment. Results: LVRS individuals had significantly greater increases in MIP from baseline compared to medical individuals at all follow-ups (LVRS 19.8 ± 42.3%, medical 3.2 ± 29.3%, p<0.0001, 12 months). The LVRS group had significant decreases in total lung capacity (TLC), residual volume (RV), functional residual capacity (FRC) and RV/TLC compared to the medical arm at all follow-up periods. Males and individuals 65-70 years of age had significantly greater increases in MIP following LVRS compared to the medical arm at all follow-ups; this same relationship was seen at up to 24 months for low exercise capacity, upper lobe predominant emphysema. Conclusions: LVRS significantly increases inspiratory muscle strength up to 3 years post-operatively, with male sex, age 65-70 years and low exercise capacity, upper lobe predominant emphysema especially associated with increased MIP. Inspiratory muscle strength increases were associated with decreases in non-invasive markers of dynamic hyperinflation, suggesting that LVRS allows inspiratory muscles to return to their optimal length-tension relationship.
| S-EPMC6373585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Substantial information regarding the role of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) in severe emphysema emanates from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT). The NETT was not a crossover trial and therefore was able to examine the effects of optimal medical management and LVRS on short- and long-term survival,as well as lung function, exercise performance, and quality of life.The NETT generated multiple insights into the preoperative, perioperative,and postoperative management of patients undergoing thoracotomy; described pain control techniques that were safe and effective; and emphasized the need to address nonpulmonary issues to optimize surgical outcomes. After the NETT, newer investigation has focused on bronchoscopic endobronchial interventions and other techniques less invasive than LVRS to achieve lung reduction.In this review, we summarize what we currently know about the role of LVRS in the treatment of severe emphysema as a result of insights gained from the NETT and provide a brief review of the newer techniques of lung volume reduction.
| S-EPMC3208657 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9951009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lung volume reduction (LVR) techniques improve lung function in selected patients with emphysema, but the impact of LVR procedures on the asynchronous movement of different chest wall compartments, which is a feature of emphysema, is not known.We used optoelectronic plethysmography to assess the effect of surgical and bronchoscopic LVR on chest wall asynchrony. Twenty-six patients were assessed before and 3 months after LVR (surgical [n = 9] or bronchoscopic [n = 7]) or a sham/unsuccessful bronchoscopic treatment (control subjects, n = 10). Chest wall volumes were divided into six compartments (left and right of each of pulmonary ribcage [Vrc,p], abdominal ribcage [Vrc,a], and abdomen [Vab]) and phase shift angles (?) calculated for the asynchrony between Vrc,p and Vrc,a (?RC), and between Vrc,a and Vab (?DIA).Participants had an FEV? of 34.6 ± 18% predicted and a residual volume of 217.8 ± 46.0% predicted with significant chest wall asynchrony during quiet breathing at baseline (?RC, 31.3° ± 38.4°; and ?DIA, -38.7° ± 36.3°). Between-group difference in the change in ?RC and ?DIA during quiet breathing following treatment was 44.3° (95% CI, -78 to -10.6; P = .003) and 34.5° (95% CI, 1.4 to 67.5; P = .007) toward 0° (representing perfect synchrony), respectively, favoring the LVR group. Changes in ?RC and ?DIA were statistically significant on the treated but not the untreated sides.Successful LVR significantly reduces chest wall asynchrony in patients with emphysema.
| S-EPMC4493874 | biostudies-other
Project description:The lung volume reduction coil treatment is a minimally invasive bronchoscopic treatment option for emphysema patients who suffer from severe hyperinflation. The treatment is aimed at a large group of patients where lung volume reduction surgery and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction using endobronchial valves are no option, or alternatively, can be offered as a bridge to lung transplantation. The nitinol coil exhibits a shape memory effect and is biologically inert. The lung volume reduction coil procedure is performed in two separate treatment sessions, targeting one lobe per session, with the contralateral lobe being treated 4 to 8 weeks after the first session. In one treatment session, around 10 to 14 coils, thereby treating an entire lobe, are being placed. Selecting optimally treated, symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with emphysema and severe hyperinflation, while avoiding significant airway disease such as asthma, chronic bronchitis and bronchiectasis, is key to achieve treatment success. Three randomized clinical trials investigating lung volume reduction coil treatment have been published until now, reporting the results of 452 treated patients up to 12 months after coil treatment. Lung volume reduction coil treatment results in significant improvement of pulmonary function outcomes and quality of life in patients with severe hyperinflation. The most common complications of lung volume reduction coil treatment are: COPD exacerbations, pneumonia, Coil Associated Opacity and an increased risk of pneumothorax. The purpose of this article is to describe the coil technique and review the available literature regarding effect, safety and future perspectives of lung volume reduction with coils for emphysema patients.
| S-EPMC6129816 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR), using biological agents, is one of the new alternatives to lung volume reduction surgery.ObjectivesTo evaluate efficacy and safety of biological BLVR using low cost agents including autologous blood and fibrin glue.MethodsEnrolled patients were divided into two groups: group A (seven patients) in which autologous blood was used and group B (eight patients) in which fibrin glue was used. The agents were injected through a triple lumen balloon catheter via fiberoptic bronchoscope. Changes in high resolution computerized tomography (HRCT) volumetry, pulmonary function tests, symptoms, and exercise capacity were evaluated at 12 weeks postprocedure as well as for complications.ResultsIn group A, at 12 weeks postprocedure, there was significant improvement in the mean value of HRCT volumetry and residual volume/total lung capacity (% predicted) (P-value: <0.001 and 0.038, respectively). In group B, there was significant improvement in the mean value of HRCT volumetry and (residual volume/total lung capacity % predicted) (P-value: 0.005 and 0.004, respectively). All patients tolerated the procedure with no mortality.ConclusionBLVR using autologous blood and locally prepared fibrin glue is a promising method for therapy of advanced emphysema in term of efficacy, safety as well as cost effectiveness.
| S-EPMC4976808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Limited guidance exists for the implementation of lung volume reduction interventions in routine clinical care. We designed a pragmatic study to evaluate a strategy including endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) and lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) in heterogeneous emphysema. This prospective monocentre cohort study evaluated ELVR versus no-ELVR, followed by a cohort study evaluating LVRS. Primary outcome was the proportion of subjects with a forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) improvement of ⩾100 mL at 3-month follow-up. Changes in FEV1, residual volume (RV), 6-min walk distance (6MWD) and quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)) were evaluated at 6-month follow-up. Hospital stay and treatment-related serious adverse events were monitored. From 106 subjects screened, 38 subjects were enrolled comparing ELVR (n=20) with no-ELVR (n=18). After 6 months' follow-up, eligible patients were referred for LVRS (n=16) with another 6-month follow-up. At 3-month follow-up, 70% of ELVR compared to 11% of no-ELVR (p<0.001) and 69% of LVRS had an FEV1 improvement of ⩾100 mL. Between-group differences (mean±sem) for ELVR versus no-ELVR at 6-month follow-up were FEV1 +0.21±0.05 L; RV -0.95±0.21 L; 6MWD 58±17 m and SGRQ -18±5 points. At 6-month follow-up, within-group differences (mean±sem) for LVRS showed FEV1 +0.27±0.06 L; RV -1.49±0.22 L and 6MWD +75±18 m. Serious adverse events in 81% versus 45% of subjects (p=0.04) and a median hospital stay of 15 versus 5 days (p<0.001) were observed for LVRS versus ELVR, respectively. This pragmatic prospective cohort study supports a clinical approach with ELVR as a less invasive first option and LVRS as powerful alternative in severe heterogeneous emphysema.
| S-EPMC8165372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Although lung volume reduction surgery and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with endobronchial valves have both been shown to improve lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life in appropriately selected patients with emphysema, there are no direct comparison data between the two procedures to inform clinical decision-making. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We describe the protocol of the CELEB study, a randomised controlled trial which will compare outcomes at 1?year between the two procedures, using a composite disease severity measure, the iBODE score, which includes body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnoeaand exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walk test). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval to conduct the study has been obtained from the Fulham Research Ethics Committee, London (16/LO/0286). The outcome of this trial will provide information to guide treatment choices in this population and will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. We will also disseminate the main results to all participants in a letter. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN19684749; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC6196851 | biostudies-other
Project description:Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) offers alternative novel treatments for patients with emphysema. Comprehensive evidence for comparing different BLVR remains unclear. To estimate the effects of different BLVR on patients with emphysema. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from January 2001 to August 2017 were searched. Randomized clinical trials evaluated effects of BLVR on patients with emphysema. The relevant information was extracted from the published reports with a predefined data extraction sheet, and the risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tools. Pair-wise metaanalyses were made using the random-effects model. A random-effects network meta-analysis was applied within a Bayesian framework. The quality of evidence contributing to primary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE framework. 13 trials were deemed eligible, including 1993 participants. The quality of evidence was rated as moderate in most comparisons. Medical care (MC)was associated with the lowest adverse events compared with intrabronchial valve (IBV)(-2.5,[-4.70 to -0.29]), endobronchial valve (EBV) (-1.73, [-2.37 to -1.09]), lung volume reduction coils (LVRC) (-0.76, [-1.24 to -0.28]), emphysematous lung sealant (ELS) (-1.53, [-2.66 to -0.39]), and airway bypass(-1.57, [-3.74 to 0.61]). Adverse events in LVRC were lower compared with ELS (-0.77,[-2.00 to 0.47]). Bronchoscopic thermal vapor ablation (BTVA) showed significant improvement in FEV1 compared with MC (0.99, [0.37 to 1.62]), IBV (1.25, [0.25 to 2.25]), and LVRC (0.72, [0.03 to 1.40] ). Six? minute walking distance (6 MWD) in ELS was significantly improved compared with other four BLVR, sham control, and MC (-1.96 to 1.99). Interestingly, MC showed less improvement in FEV1 and 6MWDcompared with EBV (-0.45, [-0.69 to -0.20] and -0.39, [-0.71 to -0.07], respectively). The mortality in MC and EBV was lower compared with LVRC alone (-0.38, [-1.16 to 0.41] and -0.50, [-1.68 to 0.68], respectively). BTVA and EBV led to significant changes in St George's respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ) compared with MC alone (-0.74, [-1.43 to -0.05] and 0.44, [0.11 to 0.78], respectively). BLVR offered a clear advantage for patients with emphysema. EBV had noticeable beneficial effects on the improvement of forced expiratory volume 1, 6MWD and SGRQ, and was associated with lower mortality compared with MC in different strategies of BLVR.
| S-EPMC7004743 | biostudies-literature