Consolidating Lung Volume Reduction Surgery After Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction Failure

Lung volume reduction surgery is safe and feasible after initial endobronchial valve treatment for emphysema patients

OBJECTIVES

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with endobronchial valves is a guideline treatment leading to improved pulmonary function, exercise tolerance and quality of life, in patients with advanced emphysema, severe hyperinflation and no collateral ventilation. After valve treatment, loss of the initial lung volume reduction effect can occur, as well as local valve-induced complications such as persistent haemoptysis. In these cases, a surgical lobectomy can be considered to achieve similar efficacy outcomes. We evaluated the safety and feasibility of a video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy after valve treatment.

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective study included patients who underwent an elective lobectomy after previous valve treatment. Data were evaluated for safety and efficacy for the additional surgical procedure.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients [73% female, median age 67 (7) years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s 29 (7) %pred, and residual volume 223 (58) %pred] were included. There was no 90-day mortality and there were no postoperative intensive care admissions. Pulmonary infections (14%) and prolonged air leak (14%) were the most common complications. In patients who underwent surgery due to loss or lack of effect of valve treatment, a lobectomy led to a significant improvement in pulmonary function; median forced expiratory volume in 1 s +75 (193) ml (P < 0.013), forced vital capacity +450 (572) ml (P = 0.001), residual volume -665 (715) ml (P = 0.005). In patients who underwent a lobectomy because of complications of valve treatment, all complications were resolved after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that an elective lobectomy after an initial valve treatment is safe and feasible and restores the lung volume reduction effect.

Lung volume reduction surgery is safe and leads to functional improvement in patients who fail or cannot undergo bronchoscopic lung volume reduction

Background

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) has supplanted surgery in the treatment of patients with advanced emphysema, but not all patients qualify for it. Our study aimed to investigate the outcomes of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) among patients who either failed BLVR or were not candidates for it.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent LVRS for upper lobe-predominant emphysema at a single tertiary center between March 2018 and December 2022. The main outcomes measures were preoperative and postoperative respiratory parameters, perioperative morbidity, and mortality.

Results

A total of 67 LVRS recipients were evaluated, including 10 who had failed prior valve placement. The median patient age was 69 years, and 35 (52%) were male. All procedures were performed thoracoscopically, with 36 patients (53.7%) undergoing bilateral LVRS. The median hospital length of stay was 7 days (interquartile range, 6-11 days). Prolonged air leak (>7 days) occurred in 20 patients. There was one 90-day mortality from a nosocomial pneumonia (non-COVID-related) and no further deaths at 12 months. There were mean improvements of 10.07% in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and 4.74% in diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, along with a mean decrease 49.2% in residual volume (P < .001 for all). The modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale was improved by 1.84 points (P < .001).

Conclusions

LVRS can be performed safely in patients who are not candidates for BLVR and those who fail BLVR and leads to significant functional improvement. Long-term follow-up is necessary to ensure the sustainability of LVRS benefits in this patient population.

[Surgical or bronchoscopic lung volume reduction for emphysema therapy]

More than 20 years ago, surgical lung volume reduction (LVRS) was already established in patients with advanced emphysema as a palliative therapy option that reduces respiratory distress and improves lung function and quality of life. In addition, bronchoscopic procedures (BLVR) aimed at volume reduction have existed for just over 10 years. The advantages and disadvantages of LVRS and BLVR are discussed in this article.

Endobronchial Valve Replacements in Patients with Advanced Emphysema After Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction

Purpose

Up to 41% of patients with endobronchial valve implantation need revision bronchoscopies and valve replacements most likely due to valve dysfunction or lack of benefit. So far, no data is available whether valve replacements lead to the desired lobar volume reduction and therapy benefit.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of patients with endobronchial valve implantation and at least one valve replacement. Indications and number of revision bronchoscopies and valve replacements were evaluated. Therapy benefit regarding lung function and exercise capacity as well as development of complete lobar atelectasis was investigated and possible predictors identified.

Results

We identified 73 patients with 1-12 revision bronchoscopies and 1-5 valve replacements. The main indication for revision bronchoscopy in this group was lack of therapy benefit (44.2%). Lung function and exercise capacity showed improvements in about one-third of patients even years after the initial implantation. A total of 26% of all patients showed a complete lobar atelectasis at the end of the observation period, 56.2% had developed lung volume reduction. The logistic regression revealed the development of a previous complete lobar atelectasis as predictor for a complete lobar atelectasis at final follow-up. Oral cortisone long-term therapy was also shown as predictive factor. The probability for a final complete lobar atelectasis was 69.2% if a lobar atelectasis had developed before.

Conclusion

Valve replacements are more likely to be beneficial in patients who develop a re-aeration of a previous lobar atelectasis following valve implantation. Every decision for revision bronchoscopy must be taken carefully.

Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction for Emphysema: Review and Update

In carefully selected patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, characterized by emphysema and hyperinflation, lung volume reduction is an option to reduce lung hyperinflation, improve lung function, quality of life, and exercise capacity. Currently, there are several bronchoscopic and surgical treatment options to achieve lung volume reduction. It is important to carefully phenotype these patients, to select the optimal treatment option, with consideration of possible adverse events or contraindications, and it is highly recommended to discuss these treatment strategies in a multidisciplinary team. The treatment with one-way endobronchial valves has been investigated most extensively and more data are available regarding the treatment of more "marginal cases," or subsequent lung volume reduction surgery. Other bronchoscopic lung volume reduction options include treatment with coils, thermal vapor ablation, and sclerosant agents. In this review, we aim to summarize the current clinical evidence on the bronchoscopic lung volume reduction therapies and important aspects regarding optimal patient selection.

Robotic lung volume reduction surgery with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Lobectomy for consolidation of failed endoscopic lung volume reduction for emphysema has been reported in selected patients with favorable results but with considerable morbidity. The challenging issues in such patients are frailty caused by severe emphysema itself, poor tolerance to single lung ventilation, target lobe hyperinflation, and inability to use gas inflation for the minimally invasive resection. Careful planning, including using a robotic platform and ECMO support, can circumvent such difficulties and ensure a safe minimally invasive resection in the high-risk emphysematous patient.

Lung volume reduction in real clinical practice

Pragmatic studies and capturing routine care clinical data in registration databases are important to further guide and optimise treatments in the future https://bit.ly/3el1lh7.

Lung volume reduction in emphysema: a pragmatic prospective cohort study

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.

Lobectomy as lung volume reduction surgery in a patient with previous contralateral bilobectomy

Lung-volume-reduction-surgery is a well-stablished treatment for pulmonary emphysema; however, lobectomy is performed unfrequently in this indication. In a 48-years-old female with COPD stage GOLD IIIC with previous lower bilobectomy due to severe poststenotic pneumonia and multiple ineffective endobronchial-valves placements lower lobe lobectomy as LVRS was performed via anterolateral thoracotomy. FEV1 increased from 0,9l (31%) preoperative to 1,74l (59%) postoperative. This case demonstrates that in well selected patients, lobar resection for emphysema is feasible with good functional outcome even in patients after previous contralateral anatomic resection.