Implementation of Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction Using One-Way Endobronchial Valves: A Retrospective Single-Centre Cohort Study.
Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction
Emphysema
Intervention
Interventional bronchoscopy
Journal
Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases
ISSN: 1423-0356
Titre abrégé: Respiration
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 0137356
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
22
03
2021
accepted:
23
10
2021
pubmed:
23
12
2021
medline:
6
5
2022
entrez:
22
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) using 1-way endobronchial valves (EBV) has become a guideline treatment in patients with advanced emphysema. Evidence from this minimally invasive treatment derives mainly from well-designed controlled trials conducted in high-volume specialized intervention centres. Little is known about real-life outcome data in hospitals setting up this novel treatment and which favourable conditions are required for a continuous successful program. In this study, we aim to evaluate the eligibility rate for BLVR and whether the implementation of BLVR in our academic hospital is feasible and yields clinically significant outcomes. A retrospective evaluation of patients treated with EBV between January 2016 and August 2019 was conducted. COPD assessment test (CAT), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), residual volume (RV), and 6-min walking test (6MWT) were measured at baseline and 3 months after intervention. Paired sample t tests were performed to compare means before and after intervention. Of 350 subjects screened, 283 (81%) were not suitable for intervention mostly due to lack of a target lobe. The remaining 67 subjects (19%) underwent bronchoscopic assessment, and if suitable, valves were placed in the same session. In total, 55 subjects (16%) were treated with EBV of which 10 did not have complete follow-up: 6 subjects had their valves removed because of severe pneumothorax (n = 2) or lack of benefit (n = 4) and the remaining 4 had missing follow-up data. Finally, 45 patients had complete follow-up at 3 months and showed an average change ± SD in CAT -4 ± 6 points, FEV1 +190 ± 140 mL, RV -770 ± 790 mL, and +37 ± 65 m on the 6MWT (all p < 0.001). After 1-year follow-up, 34 (76%) subjects had their EBV in situ. Implementing BLVR with EBV is feasible and effective. Only 16% of screened patients were eligible, indicating that this intervention is only applicable in a small subset of highly selected subjects with advanced emphysema, and therefore a high volume of COPD patients is essential for a sustainable BLVR program.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) using 1-way endobronchial valves (EBV) has become a guideline treatment in patients with advanced emphysema. Evidence from this minimally invasive treatment derives mainly from well-designed controlled trials conducted in high-volume specialized intervention centres. Little is known about real-life outcome data in hospitals setting up this novel treatment and which favourable conditions are required for a continuous successful program.
OBJECTIVES
In this study, we aim to evaluate the eligibility rate for BLVR and whether the implementation of BLVR in our academic hospital is feasible and yields clinically significant outcomes.
METHOD
A retrospective evaluation of patients treated with EBV between January 2016 and August 2019 was conducted. COPD assessment test (CAT), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), residual volume (RV), and 6-min walking test (6MWT) were measured at baseline and 3 months after intervention. Paired sample t tests were performed to compare means before and after intervention.
RESULTS
Of 350 subjects screened, 283 (81%) were not suitable for intervention mostly due to lack of a target lobe. The remaining 67 subjects (19%) underwent bronchoscopic assessment, and if suitable, valves were placed in the same session. In total, 55 subjects (16%) were treated with EBV of which 10 did not have complete follow-up: 6 subjects had their valves removed because of severe pneumothorax (n = 2) or lack of benefit (n = 4) and the remaining 4 had missing follow-up data. Finally, 45 patients had complete follow-up at 3 months and showed an average change ± SD in CAT -4 ± 6 points, FEV1 +190 ± 140 mL, RV -770 ± 790 mL, and +37 ± 65 m on the 6MWT (all p < 0.001). After 1-year follow-up, 34 (76%) subjects had their EBV in situ.
CONCLUSION
Implementing BLVR with EBV is feasible and effective. Only 16% of screened patients were eligible, indicating that this intervention is only applicable in a small subset of highly selected subjects with advanced emphysema, and therefore a high volume of COPD patients is essential for a sustainable BLVR program.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34937034
pii: 000520885
doi: 10.1159/000520885
pmc: PMC9153356
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
476-484Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Références
Respiration. 2017;94(2):224-231
pubmed: 28637047
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2021 Jan 22;32(2):263-269
pubmed: 33280038
COPD. 2005 Mar;2(1):111-24
pubmed: 17136971
Respiration. 2016;92(2):118-26
pubmed: 27562904
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995 Aug;152(2):653-7
pubmed: 7633722
Respiration. 2017;93(2):138-150
pubmed: 27992862
Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2019 Jan-Dec;13:1753466619835494
pubmed: 30874483
Respiration. 2014;87(6):513-21
pubmed: 24777292
N Engl J Med. 2000 Jul 27;343(4):239-45
pubmed: 10911005
Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2019 Jan-Dec;13:1753466619866101
pubmed: 31373259
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Dec 1;200(11):1354-1362
pubmed: 31365298
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2020 Apr 23;15:871-881
pubmed: 32368033
Lancet Respir Med. 2014 Mar;2(3):195-203
pubmed: 24621681
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Nov 1;198(9):1151-1164
pubmed: 29787288
Chest. 1988 Oct;94(4):782-7
pubmed: 3168574
N Engl J Med. 2015 Dec 10;373(24):2325-35
pubmed: 26650153
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014 Dec;148(6):2651-8.e1
pubmed: 24631312
Lancet. 2015 Sep 12;386(9998):1066-73
pubmed: 26116485
Lung. 2020 Feb;198(1):221-228
pubmed: 31832749
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 Nov 1;194(9):1073-1082
pubmed: 27580428
Respiration. 2017;93(2):112-121
pubmed: 27974713
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Dec 15;196(12):1535-1543
pubmed: 28885054
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Feb;91(2):221-5
pubmed: 20159125
Eur Respir J. 2012 Nov;40(5):1137-41
pubmed: 22441742