Safety and efficacy of median sternotomy versus video-assisted thoracic surgery for lung volume reduction surgery

Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction as the Treatment of Choice versus Robotic-Assisted Lung Volume Reduction Surgery in Similar Patients with Emphysema - An Initial Experience of the Benefits and Complications

Objective

There is an assumption that because EBLVR requires less use of hospital resources, offsetting the higher cost of endobronchial valves, it should therefore be the treatment of choice wherever possible. We have tested this hypothesis in a retrospective analysis of the two in similar groups of patients.

Methods

In a 4-year experience, we performed 177 consecutive LVR procedures: 83 patients underwent Robot Assisted Thoracoscopic (RATS) LVRS and 94 EBLVR. EBLVR was intentionally precluded by evidence of incomplete fissure integrity or intra-operative assessment of collateral ventilation. Unilateral RATS LVRS was performed in these cases together with those with unsuitable targets for EBLVR.

Results

EBLVR was uncomplicated in 37 (39%) cases; complicated by post-procedure spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) in 28(30%) and required revision in 29 (31%). In the LVRS group, 7 (8%) patients were readmitted with treatment-related complications, but no revisional procedure was needed. When compared with uncomplicated EBLVR, LVRS had a significantly longer operating time: 85 (14-82) vs 40 (15-151) minutes (p<0.001) and hospital stay: 7.5 (2-80) vs 2 (1-14) days (p<0.01). However, LVRS had a similar total operating time to both EBLVR requiring revision: 78 (38-292) minutes and hospital stay to EBLVR complicated by pneumothorax of 11.5 (6.5-24.25) days. Use of critical care was significantly longer in RATS group, and it was also significantly longer in EBV with SP group than in uncomplicated EBV group.

Conclusion

Endobronchial LVR does use less hospital resources than RATS LVRS in comparable groups if the recovery is uncomplicated. However, this advantage is lost if one includes the resources needed for the treatment of complications and revisional procedures. Any decision to favour EBLVR over LVRS should not be based on the assumption of a smoother, faster perioperative course.

Relevance of pleural adhesions for short- and long-term outcomes after lung volume reduction surgery

Objective

Pleural adhesions (PLAs) have been shown to be a possible risk factor for air leak after lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), but the relevance of PLA for lung function outcome remains unclear. We analyzed our LVRS cohort for the influence of PLA on short-term (ie, prolonged air leak) and long-term outcomes.

Methods

Retrospective observational cohort study with 187 consecutive patients who underwent LVRS from January 2016 to December 2019. PLA were defined as relevant if they were distributed extensively at the dorsal pleura; were present in at least at 2 areas, including the dorsal pleura; or present extensively at the mediastinal pleura. In patients with bilateral emphysema, bilateral LVRS was performed preferentially. The objectives were to quantify the association of PLA and rate of prolonged air leak (chest tube >7 days), and the association of PLA with postoperative exacerbations and with forced expiratory volume in 1 second 3 months postoperatively. The associations were quantified with odds ratios for binary outcomes, and with between-group differences for continuous outcomes. To account for missing observations, 100-fold multiple imputation was used.

Results

PLAs were found in 46 of 187 patients (24.6%). There was a 32.6% rate of prolonged air leak (n = 61), mean chest tube time was 7.84 days. A total of 94 (50.3%) LVRSs were unilateral and 93 were bilateral. There was evidence for an association between PLA and the rate of prolonged air leak (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.36 to 5.89; P = .006). There was no evidence for an association between PLA and postoperative exacerbations (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.5 to 2.45; P = .79). There was no evidence for an association between PLA and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (estimate -1.52; 95% CI -5.67 to 2.63; P = .47). Both unilateral and bilateral LVRS showed significant postoperative improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second by 27% (8.43 units; 95% CI, 3.66-13.12; P = .0006) and by 28% (7.87 units; 95% CI, 4.68-11.06; P < .0001) and a reduction in residual volume of 15% (-33.9 units; 95% CI, -56.37 to -11.42; P = .003) and 15% (-34.9 units; 95% CI, -52.57 to -17.22; P = .0001), respectively.

Conclusions

Patients should be aware of potential prolongation of hospitalization due to PLA. However, there might be no relevant influence of PLA on lung function outcomes.

Analysis of Recent Literature on Lung Volume Reduction Surgery

Publication of the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) in 2003 established lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) as a viable treatment of select patients with moderate to severe emphysema, and the only intervention since the availability of ambulatory supplemental oxygen to improve survival. Despite these findings, surgical treatment has been underused in part because of concern for high morbidity and mortality. This article reviews recent literature generated since the original NETT publication, focusing on physiologic implications of LVRS, recent data regarding the safety and durability of LVRS, and patient selection and extension of NETT criteria to other patient populations.

Technical Aspects of Lung Volume Reduction Surgery Including Anesthetic Management and Surgical Approaches

As palliative treatment, lung volume reduction surgery can be offered to a selected subset of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Careful adherence to established inclusion and exclusion criteria is critical to achieve good outcomes. The evolution of surgical techniques toward minimally invasive approaches has improved outcomes. The fully extrathoracic access combining a subxiphoid incision with subcostal port placement allowed a further decrease in perioperative pain, which favors spontaneous respiratory drive and early postoperative mobilization. Less aggressive resections and better match for size of the hemithorax have contributed to a short-term reduction in morbidity and continued improvements in cardiopulmonary function.

Critical Analysis of the National Emphysema Treatment Trial Results for Lung-Volume-Reduction Surgery

The National Emphysema Treatment Trial compared medical treatment of severe pulmonary emphysema with lung-volume-reduction surgery in a multiinstitutional randomized prospective fashion. Two decades later, this trial remains one of the key sources of information we have on the treatment of advanced emphysematous lung disease. The trial demonstrated the short- and long-term effectiveness of surgical intervention as well as the need for strict patient selection and preoperative workup. Despite these findings, the key failure of the trial was an inability to convince the medical community of the value of surgical resection in the treatment of advanced emphysema.

Economic Considerations of Lung Volume Reduction Surgery and Bronchoscopic Valves

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a challenging disease to treat, and at advanced stages of the disease, procedural interventions become some of the only effective methods for improving quality of life. However, these procedures are often very costly. This article reviews the medical literature on cost-effectiveness of lung volume reduction surgery and bronchoscopic valve placement for lung volume reduction. It discusses the anticipated costs and economic impact in the future as technique is perfected and outcomes are improved.

Value of a Multidisciplinary Team Approach to Treatment of Emphysema

Lung volume reduction surgery can significantly improve quality of life for properly selected patients who are symptomatic despite maximal medical management for emphysema. This requires a well-constructed multidisciplinary team (including transplant) to evaluate and treat these patients.

Lung volume reduction surgery: from National Emphysema Treatment Trial to non-intubated awake video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major public health problem. Loss of elastic recoil, hyperinflation and obstruction of the expiratory airflow lead to an increased breathing work, which results in dyspnea during minimal physical activity of the patients. Reduction of the lung volume in these patients leads to improvement of dyspnea, physical activity and quality of life in these patients. Beside endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR), lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) represents an important and valuable treatment option for patients with advanced lung emphysema. Since the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT), thoracic surgery experienced a remarkable evolution of the surgical techniques enabling safe surgery and quick recovery in this critically ill patient cohort. A paradigm shift from open surgical approaches to most minimally invasive techniques accompanied by improvement of anesthesiologic management of these patients was evident. Moreover, indications for LVRS, which were originally described in the NETT, were extended to apply for further groups of patients with advanced lung emphysema, enabling significant clinical improvement in well-selected patients with a low perioperative morbidity and mortality. The current review will give an overview of the historical approaches for LVRS, highlight the indications for LVRS and discuss the development of the surgical approaches.

Lung volume reduction surgery for diffuse emphysema

BACKGROUND

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) performed to treat patients with severe diffuse emphysema was reintroduced in the nineties. Lung volume reduction surgery aims to resect damaged emphysematous lung tissue, thereby increasing elastic properties of the lung. This treatment is hypothesised to improve long-term daily functioning and quality of life, although it may be costly and may be associated with risks of morbidity and mortality. Ten years have passed since the last version of this review was prepared, prompting us to perform an update.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to gather all available evidence from randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) versus non-surgical standard therapy in improving health outcomes for patients with severe diffuse emphysema. Secondary objectives included determining which subgroup of patients benefit from LVRS and for which patients LVRS is contraindicated, to establish the postoperative complications of LVRS and its morbidity and mortality, to determine which surgical approaches for LVRS are most effective and to calculate the cost-effectiveness of LVRS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified RCTs by using the Cochrane Airways Group Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) register, in addition to the online clinical trials registers. Searches are current to April 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that studied the safety and efficacy of LVRS in participants with diffuse emphysema. We excluded studies that investigated giant or bullous emphysema.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. When possible, we combined data from more than one study in a meta-analysis using RevMan 5 software.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two new studies (89 participants) in this updated review. A total of 11 studies (1760 participants) met the entry criteria of the review, one of which accounted for 68% of recruited participants. The quality of evidence ranged from low to moderate owing to an unclear risk of bias across many studies, lack of blinding and low participant numbers for some outcomes. Eight of the studies compared LVRS versus standard medical care, one compared two closure techniques (stapling vs laser ablation), one looked at the effect of buttressing the staple line on the effectiveness of LVRS and one compared traditional 'resectional' LVRS with a non-resectional surgical approach. Participants completed a mandatory course of pulmonary rehabilitation/physical training before the procedure commenced. Short-term mortality was higher for LVRS (odds ratio (OR) 6.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.22 to 11.79; 1489 participants; five studies; moderate-quality evidence) than for control, but long-term mortality favoured LVRS (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95; 1280 participants; two studies; moderate-quality evidence). Participants identified post hoc as being at high risk of death from surgery were those with particularly impaired lung function, poor diffusing capacity and/or homogenous emphysema. Participants with upper lobe-predominant emphysema and low baseline exercise capacity showed the most favourable outcomes related to mortality, as investigators reported no significant differences in early mortality between participants treated with LVRS and those in the control group (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.29; 290 participants; one study), as well as significantly lower mortality at the end of follow-up for LVRS compared with control (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78; 290 participants; one study). Trials in this review furthermore provided evidence of low to moderate quality showing that improvements in lung function parameters other than forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), quality of life and exercise capacity were more likely with LVRS than with usual follow-up. Adverse events were more common with LVRS than with control, specifically the occurrence of (persistent) air leaks, pulmonary morbidity (e.g. pneumonia) and cardiovascular morbidity. Although LVRS leads to an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), the procedure is relatively costly overall.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lung volume reduction surgery, an effective treatment for selected patients with severe emphysema, may lead to better health status and lung function outcomes, specifically for patients who have upper lobe-predominant emphysema with low exercise capacity, but the procedure is associated with risks of early mortality and adverse events.

[What place for lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema?]

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has been part of the management for the treatment of selected emphysematous patients for two decades. In a large randomized American trial (NETT), lung volume reduction surgery was shown to improve overall survival at 5 years as well as exercise capacity and health-related quality of life, especially in cases of upper-lobe-predominant emphysema and low exercise capacity. Inclusion criteria were pretreatment FEV1≤45 %, TLC≥100 %, RV≥150 %, room air resting PaCO₂≤60mmHg and PaO₂≥45mmHg. Patients with FEV1≤20 % and either a DLCO<20 % or homogeneous emphysema were at increased risk of mortality following LVRS and should not be considered for this procedure. Despite this evidence base, lung volume reduction surgery is performed infrequently, competing with lung transplantation and new endoscopic volume reduction techniques.

Single-lung transplantation in emphysema: Retrospective study analyzing survival and waiting list mortality

AIM: To performed remains a subject of debate and is the principal aim of the study.

METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 73 patients with emphysema (2000-2012). The outcomes of patients undergoing single-lung transplantation (SL) (n = 40) or double-lung transplant (DL) (n = 33) were compared in a Cox multivariate analysis to study the impact of the technique, postoperative complications and acute and chronic rejection on survival rates. Patients were selected for inclusion in the waiting list according to the International Society of Heart Lung Transplantation criteria. Pre and postoperative rehabilitation and prophylaxis, surgical technique and immunosuppressive treatment were similar in every patients. Lung transplantation waiting list information on a national level and retrospective data on emphysema patient survival transplanted in Spain during the study period, was obtained from the lung transplantation registry managed by the National Transplant Organization (ONT).

RESULTS: Both groups were comparable in terms of gender and clinical characteristics. We found significant differences in the mean age between the groups, the DL patients being younger as expected from the inclusion criteria. Perioperative complications occurred in 27.6% SL vs 54% DL (P = 0.032). Excluding perioperative mortality, median survival was 65.3 mo for SL and 59.4 mo for DL (P = 0.96). Bronchiolitis obliterans and overall 5-year survival were similar in both groups. Bacterial respiratory infection, cytomegalovirus and fungal infection rates were higher but not significant in SL. No differences were found between type of transplant and survival (P = 0.48). To support our results, national data on all patients with emphysema in waiting list were obtained (n = 1001). Mortality on the waiting list was 2.4% for SL vs 6.2% for DL. There was no difference in 5 year survival between 235 SL and 430 DL patients transplanted (P = 0.875).

CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that SL transplantation in emphysema produce similar survival than DL with less postoperative complication and significant lower mortality in waiting list.

Advanced therapies for COPD-What's on the horizon? Progress in lung volume reduction and lung transplantation

Advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a significant cause of morbidity. Treatment options beyond conventional medical therapies are limited to a minority of patients. Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) although effective in selected subgroups of patients is not commonly undertaken. Morbidity associated with the procedure has contributed to this low utilisation. In response to this, less invasive bronchoscopic lung volume techniques are being developed to attempt to mitigate some of the risks and costs associated with surgery. Of these, endobronchial valve therapy is the most comprehensively studied although the presence of collateral ventilation in a significant proportion of patients has compromised its widespread utility. Bronchial thermal vapour ablation and lung volume reduction (LVR) coils are not dependent on collateral ventilation. These techniques have shown promise in early clinical trials; ongoing work will establish whether they have a role in the management of advanced COPD. Lung transplantation, although effective in selected patients for palliation of symptoms and improving survival, is limited by donor organ availability and economic constraint. Reconditioning marginal organs previously declined for transplantation with ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) is one potential strategy in improving the utilisation of donor organs. By increasing the donor pool, it is hoped lung transplantation might be more accessible for patients with advanced COPD into the future.

Early outcomes after bilateral thoracoscopy versus median sternotomy for lung volume reduction

OBJECTIVE

: A National Emphysema Treatment Trial subanalysis, although finally describing outcomes as "comparable," suggested that bilateral lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) may be slightly less morbid than by median sternotomy (MS). We report a single surgeon experience using both the MS and VATS approaches to provide additional information on this issue in a setting of uniform patient selection and perioperative management. Our hypothesis was that a VATS approach would provide equivalent or less morbidity than MS despite being applied to a group of patients subjectively selected to be higher risk than those undergoing MS.

METHODS

: Consecutive patients over a 9-year period underwent LVRS by one surgeon by either MS or VATS in a nonrandomized fashion. Thoracoscopy was selected over MS primarily when the surgeon estimated a greater overall risk profile and thus a greater chance of morbidity/mortality in a particular patient.

RESULTS

: There were 15 patients in the VATS group and 35 in the MS group. In terms of measures of risk profile, there were no differences between the groups that met statistical significance, but several values trended toward higher risk within the VATS group (eg, age, 63 VATS vs. 59 MS, P = 0.08; moderate pulmonary hypertension, 38% VATS vs. 14% MS, P = 0.11; and residual volume, 241% VATS vs. 226% MS, P = 0.32). With regard to outcomes, operative time was significantly longer in the VATS group (VATS = 155 minutes vs. MS=129 minutes, P = 0.01). All other outcomes, including the incidence of major complications (13.3% VATS vs. 17.1% MS, P = 0.39), were similar between the groups. There was a single death within 90 days (1.9% of entire series; 2.9% of MS group).

CONCLUSIONS

: In this series, although patients undergoing LVRS by VATS tended to have a higher risk profile, their outcomes were no worse than in those undergoing LVRS by MS. This suggests that the VATS approach to bilateral LVRS may incur slightly less morbidity and thus may be the best option in the most compromised patients who is nonetheless felt will benefit from LVRS.

Minimally invasive lung surgery and postoperative quality of life

Quality of life (QOL) after medical interventions is paramount to the patient considering treatment recommendations. To understand QOL in thoracic surgery patients, one must examine the outcomes patients prioritize (preferences) from successful surgical therapy, overall functional status of thoracic surgery patients, the literature addressing QOL after thoracic surgery (TS) and the possible benefit of minimally invasive TS, and, finally, future directions of TS postoperative QOL research. The primary focus of this article is lung cancer surgery with mention of other thoracic disease such as empyema, pneumothorax, or emphysema, as well.

Sternotomy or bilateral thoracoscopy: pain and postoperative complications after lung-volume reduction surgery

OBJECTIVES

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and median sternotomy (MS) are two approaches in lung-volume reduction surgery (LVRS). This study focused on the two surgical approaches with regard to postoperative pain.

METHODS

In this prospective, non-randomized study, pain was measured preoperatively and postoperatively using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the brief pain inventory (BPI). Incentive spirometry (IS) assessed restriction of the thoracic cage due to pain. Factors associated with treatment complications, medication usage, hospital stay, operating times, and chest-tube duration differences were examined between groups.

RESULTS

Of 85 patients undergoing LVRS, 23 patients underwent reduction via MS and 62 patients via bilateral VATS. VAS scores revealed no difference in postoperative pain except for VAS scores on days 6 (PM) and 7 (PM). BPI scores yielded higher scores in the VATS group on postoperative day (POD) 1 in the reactive dimension, but no other overall differences. MS patients receiving tramadol consumed a higher mean amount than VATS patients on POD 5 and POD 6. IS change from baseline to postoperative were similar between groups, and increased pain correlated with decreased IS scores on POD 1. Chest-tube duration, complications, and pain medication were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral VATS and MS offer similar outcomes with regard to postoperative pain and complications. These results suggest that the choice of LVRS operative approach should be dependent on disease presentation, surgeon expertise, and patient preference, not based upon differences in perceived postoperative pain between MS and bilateral VATS.

The National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) Part II: Lessons learned about lung volume reduction surgery

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.

Several clinical interests regarding lung volume reduction surgery for severe emphysema: meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Objectives

We aim to address several clinical interests regarding lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) for severe emphysema using meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

Eight RCTs published from 1999 to 2010 were identified and synthesized to compare the efficacy and safety of LVRS vs conservative medical therapy. One RCT was obtained regarding comparison of median sternotomy (MS) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). And three RCTs were available evaluating clinical efficacy of using bovine pericardium for buttressing, autologous fibrin sealant and BioGlue, respectively.

Results

Odds ratio (95%CI), expressed as the mortality of group A (the group underwent LVRS) versus group B (conservative medical therapies), was 5.16(2.84, 9.35) in 3 months, 3(0.94, 9.57) in 6 months, 1.05(0.82, 1.33) in 12 months, respectively. On the 3^rd, 6^th and 12^th month, all lung function indices of group A were improved more significantly as compared with group B. PaO2 and PaCO2 on the 6^th and 12^th month showed the same trend. 6MWD of group A on the 6^th month and 12^th month were improved significantly than of group B, despite no difference on the 3^rd month. Quality of life (QOL) of group A was better than of group B in 6 and 12 months. VATS is preferred to MS, due to the earlier recovery and lower cost. And autologous fibrin sealant and BioGlue seems to be the efficacious methods to reduce air leak following LVRS.

Conclusions

LVRS offers the more benefits regarding survival, lung function, gas exchange, exercise capacity and QOL, despite the higher mortality in initial three postoperative months. LVRS, with the optimization of surgical approach and material for reinforcement of the staple lines, should be recommended to patients suffering from severe heterogeneous emphysema.

Lung transplantation and lung volume reduction surgery

Since the publication of the last edition of the Handbook of Physiology, lung transplantation has become widely available, via specialized centers, for a variety of end-stage lung diseases. Lung volume reduction surgery, a procedure for emphysema first conceptualized in the 1950s, electrified the pulmonary medicine community when it was rediscovered in the 1990s. In parallel with their technical and clinical refinement, extensive investigation has explored the unique physiology of these procedures. In the case of lung transplantation, relevant issues include the discrepant mechanical function of the donor lungs and recipient thorax, the effects of surgical denervation, acute and chronic rejection, respiratory, chest wall, and limb muscle function, and response to exercise. For lung volume reduction surgery, there have been new insights into the counterintuitive observation that lung function in severe emphysema can be improved by resecting the most diseased portions of the lungs. For both procedures, insights from physiology have fed back to clinicians to refine patient selection and to scientists to design clinical trials. This section will first provide an overview of the clinical aspects of these procedures, including patient selection, surgical techniques, complications, and outcomes. It then reviews the extensive data on lung and muscle function following transplantation and its complications. Finally, it reviews the insights from the last 15 years on the mechanisms whereby removal of lung from an emphysema patient can improve the function of the lung left behind.

Alternatives to lung transplantation: lung volume reduction for COPD

Emphysema is disabling and progressive and hallmarked by decreased exercise tolerance and impaired quality of life. Surgical interventions that reduce lung volume have been the focus of multiple interventions for decades; however, until recently, limited evidence has documented their effectiveness. Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) underwent rigorous study in the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT), which demonstrated its short-term and long-term effectiveness, associated morbidity and mortality, and the essential factors that predict LVRS success or failure. This article summarizes the major results of the NETT and briefly reviews newer bronchoscopic lung volume reduction techniques that show promise as alternative treatments for select patients with COPD undergoing consideration for lung transplantation.

Special situations: air leak after lung volume reduction surgery and in ventilated patients

Patients undergoing lung volume reduction surgery and those supported by mechanical ventilation are among our most vulnerable patients. Prolonged air leak in these fragile patients can have dire, even fatal, consequences. This article describes the incidence of prolonged air leak in these populations, the causes ascribed to their development, and strategies that may be applied to their prevention and treatment.

Interventional treatment options for advanced emphysema: imaging manifestations

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a preventable and treatable disease characterized by progressive and debilitating limitations of airflow. Despite aggressive medical therapy, many patients with advanced emphysema continue to decline and exhibit disabling symptoms. Lung volume reduction surgery and lung transplantation can offer improved quality of life, enhanced exercise tolerance, and improvement in mortality rates in selected patients with advanced disease. In addition, newer bronchoscopic techniques to reduce lung volume in patients with emphysema are under development in an effort to duplicate the results of lung volume reduction surgery without significant morbidity. This article discusses the results of a variety of surgical and bronchoscopic interventions, with an emphasis upon the role of imaging.

Characterization of lung tissues using liquid-crystal tunable filter and hyperspectral imaging system

Hyperspectral imaging system has been developed to characterize lung tissue for detecting emphysematous tissues in lung volume reduction surgery. The system consists of a charge-coupled device and liquid crystal tunable filter, which is continuously tunable in the near-infrared spectral range of 650 - 1100 nm with a mean bandwidth of 5 nm. Using hyperspectral data, the spectral signature of healthy lung tissue and simulated smokers lung tissue is obtained and compared. The data show the peak absorption intensity at four different wavelengths (760, 805, 915, and 970 nm). However, the reflectance intensity of simulated smoker's lung tissue over all spectral range is considerably higher than the normal lung tissue. The differences provide the basis for the detection and characterization of emphysema from healthy lung tissue.

[Surgical management of COPD distension]

INTRODUCTION

The impressive results seen when giant and compressing lung bullae are resected has inspired pneumonologists and thoracic surgeons to consider the possibility of applying a similar approach to the treatment of respiratory failure due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

STATE OF THE ART

The major problem with this surgical indication lies in our ability to understand fully the pathophysiology of lesions and thus identify which emphysematous patients will have a response most similar to that achieved in purely bullous disease.

PERSPECTIVES

At the present time consideration should be given as to whether surgery is the only means of reducing pulmonary distension. Indeed, as endoscopic alternatives develop could they reproduce its beneficial effects and what would be their place compared to the surgery?

CONCLUSIONS

While waiting the development of these innovations, if the selection of the candidates is correct, the surgical treatment of lung hyperinflation can temporarily improve the quality of life of these patients by decreasing their dyspnea and increasing their exercise tolerance.

The National Emphysema Treatment Trial: summary and update

Surgery for severe emphysema involves a cohort of patients who are already at risk for increased perioperative morbidity and mortality. Through the careful screening and selection process, improved intraoperative techniques and rigorous attention to postoperative care, the NETT managed to yield acceptable improvements in survival and functional outcomes in this fragile patient cohort and these benefits were sustained over the long-term. Identification of the characteristics associated with a higher risk of death has provided tangible patient selection criteria for the ongoing application of LVRS. Because the NETT was such a large-scale study, the protocols that were developed had to be standardized across several centers. This produced reliable and reproducible standards for evaluation and treatment that can be applied to the surgical treatment of emphysema. When considering these criteria, although individualized patient selection is important, only patients with upper-lobe predominant disease on chest CT and possibly those with non-upper-lobe predominant disease who also have low baseline exercise capacity are appropriate candidates for LVRS. Expectedly, questions remain regarding the exact mechanism whereby the benefits derived from LVRS are obtained. Additionally, the benefit of LVRS in patients with heterogeneous but non-upper-lobe predominant disease remains to be further elucidated. In spite of the limitations of the study, the NETT, through a tremendous coordinated effort, provided valuable outcomes data, answered the pressing questions regarding lung volume reduc-tion surgery that existed at the time, and provided valuable insight into other facets of emphysema physiology and management through direct observation. Based on the NETT findings, in November 2003, CMS published criteria for expanded coverage for LVRS to include non-high-risk patients who demonstrated either upper-lobe predominant emphysema, or non-upper-lobe predominant emphysema and low baseline exercise capacity and who met the screening guidelines.29 This study not only provided data regarding the clinical efficacy of LRVS, but it was instrumental in determining health policy guidelines for the surgical management of emphysema.

BioGlue and Peri-strips in lung volume reduction surgery: pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Both tissue sealants and buttressing have been advocated to reduce alveolar air leaks from staple lines following Lung Volume Reduction Surgery (LVRS). However, the long term detrimental effects of buttressing material are increasingly apparent. We performed a pilot prospective randomised self controlled trial in patients undergoing LVRS comparing BioGlue and Peri-strips as adjuncts in preventing alveolar air-leaks.

METHODS

A pilot prospective self controlled clinical trial was conducted in patients undergoing LVRS. Each patient was treated with BioGlue on one side and pericardial buttress on the other side as an adjunct to the staple line. The sides were randomised for adjuncts with each patient acting as his own control. Duration of air leak, intercostal drainage and time to chest drain removal were the study end points.

RESULTS

10 patients undergoing the procedure were recruited between December 2005 and October 2007. There were 6 men and the mean age was 59.8 +/- 4.9 years. There was one mortality due to multi-organ failure. The BioGlue treated side had a shorter mean duration of air-leak (3.0 +/- 4.6 versus 6.5 +/- 6.9 days), lesser chest drainage volume (733 +/- 404 ml versus 1001 +/- 861) and shorter time to chest drain removal (9.7 +/- 10.6 versus 11.5 +/- 11.1 days) compared with Peri-strips.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates comparable efficacy of BioGlue and Peri-strips, however there is a trend favouring the BioGlue treated side in terms of reduction in air-leak, chest drainage volumes, duration of chest drainage and significant absence of complications. A larger sample size is needed to validate this result.

Lung volume reduction surgery for the management of refractory dyspnea in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review describes the role of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) for the management of refractory dyspnea and other debilitating conditions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Recent studies, including a randomized trial comparing LVRS to medical therapy, are analyzed.

RECENT FINDINGS

LVRS plus optimal medical therapy is superior to medical therapy alone in treating certain subsets of patients with severe emphysema. In patients with predominantly upper lobe emphysema and low-exercise capacity, LVRS not only improves symptoms of dyspnea and exercise intolerance, but also is associated with improved survival. Furthermore, LVRS has recently been shown to be superior to medical therapy in improving other quality of life parameters, such as nutritional status, sleep quality, and the frequency of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations in patients with severe emphysema.

SUMMARY

LVRS is an effective strategy in the treatment of properly selected patients with COPD, improving survival and quality of life, including exercise tolerance, dyspnea, oxygen requirement and functional status.

National Emphysema Treatment Trial: the major outcomes of lung volume reduction surgery in severe emphysema

The National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) has published many articles reporting the various outcomes of lung volume reduction surgery versus medical treatment for patients with severe emphysema. However, long and complex clinical trials like NETT that involve both medical and surgical issues generate multiple manuscripts over a period of years and report an array of various outcomes. As a result, the essential findings of the trial may appear to be fragmented to the clinician or clinical researcher or be lost among the many medical reports published each year. In this review, we summarize in one publication the major medical and surgical outcomes of NETT.

Lung transplantation and lung volume reduction surgery versus transplantation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Lung transplantation and lung volume reduction surgery are surgical options for patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that is refractory to medical treatment. In this review, we discuss the differential indications for each procedure, as well as compare their risks and benefits. We also present an algorithm for selecting the most appropriate procedure for individual patients. Finally, we discuss the feasibility and role of lung transplantation after lung volume reduction surgery in the management of selected patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Lung volume reduction surgery: technique, operative mortality, and morbidity

The objective of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is the safe, effective, and durable palliation of dyspnea in appropriately selected patients with moderate to severe emphysema. Appropriate patient selection and preoperative preparation are prerequisites for successful LVRS. An effective LVRS program requires participation by and communication between experts from pulmonary medicine, thoracic surgery, thoracic anesthesiology, critical care medicine, rehabilitation medicine, respiratory therapy, chest radiology, and nursing. The critical analysis of perioperative outcomes has influenced details of the conduct of the procedure and has established a bilateral, stapled approach as the standard of care for LVRS. The National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) remains the world's largest multi-center, randomized trial comparing LVRS to maximal medical therapy. NETT purposely enrolled a broad spectrum of anatomic patterns of emphysema. This, along with the prospective, audited collection of extensive demographic, physiologic, radiographic, surgical and quality-of-life data, has positioned NETT as the most robust repository of evidence to guide the refinement of patient selection criteria for LVRS, to assist surgeons in providing optimal intraoperative and postoperative care, and to establish benchmarks for survival, complication rates, return to independent living, and durability of response. This article reviews the evolution of current LVRS practice with a particular emphasis on technical aspects of the operation, including the predictors and consequences of its most common complications.

Complications in patients with severe emphysema

Thoracic surgeons frequently evaluate patients with severe emphysema and concomitant pathology requiring pulmonary resection. There are no absolute guidelines defining the suitability of a given patient for resection. In this review, we outline our approach to evaluating and treating patients with severe emphysema in need of resection. We describe the lessons learned from lung volume reduction surgery and apply that knowledge to the care of the patient with severe emphysema. Careful preoperative evaluation of the patient's lung anatomy, distribution of emphysematous changes in the lung, and overall health is essential to identifying the appropriate candidate for resection and avoiding postoperative complications.

Surgical interventions for emphysema

Three surgical procedures are pertinent to the treatment of end-stage emphysema: giant bullectomy, lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), and lung transplantation. Patients with localized disease manifesting as a giant bulla that compresses adjacent healthy lung tissues can be offered bullectomy. Patients with diffuse disease can be offered LVRS, lung transplantation, or staged LVRS/lung transplant, depending on multiple factors including age, lung function parameters, lobar predominance, and whether the disease is uni- or bilateral. Since end-stage emphysema is refractory to most medical treatment, surgery is often the only remaining option.

Update in Surgical Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Bullectomy for giant bullae, lung volume reduction surgery, and lung transplantation are three surgical therapies that may benefit highly selected patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In this article, each procedure is reviewed, with an emphasis on guidelines for patient selection and clinical outcomes for the practicing pulmonologist. Recent results from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial, updated International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry data, and revised guidelines for patient selection for lung transplantation are discussed.

Lessons from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial

Medicare coverage for lung volume reduction surgery has been approved recently by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the treatment of severe emphysema. The scientific basis for this approval stems largely from findings of the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT). The purpose of this article is to review the contributions of the NETT to the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Lung volume reduction surgery

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has been widely studied and has been available for the treatment of advanced emphysema for 10 years. This paper reviews some of the historical attempts at surgical treatment of emphysema, the physiology of LVRS, and the modern data on patient selection, risks, and benefits. Data from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial are presented in the context of the large body of case series and smaller randomized trials that have preceded that study. Future technologies of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction are also discussed.

Cytokine response is lower after lung volume reduction through bilateral thoracoscopy versus sternotomy

BACKGROUND

Lung volume reduction surgery performed through bilateral video-assisted thoracoscopy (BVATS) was associated in the National Emphysema Treatment Trial with a statistically significant reduction in intensive care unit days, failure to wean, hospital stay, and cost, and earlier recovery compared with median sternotomy. Studies comparing other minimally invasive techniques with "open" procedures, including pulmonary lobectomy, have demonstrated reduced serum proinflammatory mediators postoperatively. We measured these levels after lung volume reduction surgery through BVATS and sternotomy.

METHODS

Serum cytokine levels were measured by radioimmunoassay in 9 consecutive, steroid-free patients undergoing sternotomy and lung volume reduction surgery and 6 undergoing BVATS and lung volume reduction surgery. The groups were not statistically different with respect to age, partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide, percent forced expiratory volume in 1 second, percent residual volume, percent total lung capacity, diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, 6-minute walk, or apical perfusion fraction. Proinflammatory interleukin 6 and interleukin 8 and antiinflammatory interleukin 10 were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively on days 1, 4, and 5. Clinical data were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

There were no major postoperative complications or deaths. Interleukin 6 levels were lower in the BVATS than the sternotomy group (p = 0.016 by repeated measures analysis of variance). Interleukin 8 levels were lower in the BVATS group at most postoperative time points, but there were no significant differences in interleukin 8 or interleukin 10 levels between the sternotomy and BVATS groups at any individual time point or by analysis of variance.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a BVATS approach to lung volume reduction surgery is associated with reduced postoperative release of proinflammatory cytokines compared with a sternotomy approach. This may account for the reduction in recovery time and some measures of postoperative morbidity seen with the BVATS approach.

A multicenter trial of an intrabronchial valve for treatment of severe emphysema

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive endoscopic treatment of emphysema could provide palliation with less risk than lung volume reduction surgery and offer therapy to patients currently not considered for lung volume reduction surgery. The Intrabronchial Valve is used to block bronchial airflow in the most emphysematous areas of lung.

METHODS

Patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heterogeneous upper lobe-predominant emphysema were eligible. Patients underwent flexible bronchoscopic placement of valves into segmental or subsegmental airways in both upper lobes. Outcomes assessed over a minimum of 6 months of follow-up included the safety, feasibility, tolerance, and success of valve placement; health-related quality of life; exercise capacity; pulmonary function; and gas exchange.

RESULTS

Five centers treated 30 patients. Patient follow-up ranged from 1 to 12 months. A mean of 6.1 valves were placed per patient. Valves were positioned by means of flexible bronchoscopy in 99% of desired airways, and the procedure duration ranged from 15 to 125 minutes (mean, 65 minutes). Hospital discharge occurred within 2 days in 27 of 30 patients. There were no deaths or episodes of valve migration, tissue erosion, or significant bleeding. Eighty-three percent of patients had no adverse events judged probably or definitely related to the device. Patients experienced significant improvement in health-related quality of life, although the physiologic and exercise outcomes did not show statistically significant improvements.

CONCLUSIONS

These first multicenter results with the Intrabronchial Valve demonstrate significant improvements in health-related quality of life and acceptable safety, ease of use, and procedural complication rates. The valve might be a safer and less-invasive alternative to surgical therapy for patients with severe emphysema.

Computerized estimation of the lung volume removed during lung volume reduction surgery

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to develop an automated method for estimating lung volume removed during lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) using computed tomography (CT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The CT examinations of six patients who underwent bilateral LVRS were analyzed in this study. The resected lung tissue (right and left) was weighed during pathologic examination. An automated computer scheme was developed to estimate the lung volume removed using the CT voxel values and lung specimen weight. The computed fraction of lung volume removed was evaluated across a range of simulated surgical planes (ie, other than parallel to the CT image plane) and CT reconstruction kernels, and it was compared with the surgeons' postsurgical estimates.

RESULTS

The computed fraction of the lung volume removed during LVRS was linearly correlated with the resected lung tissue weight (Pearson correlation = 0.697, P = .012). The computed fraction of lung volume removed ranged from 12.9% to 51.7% of the total lung volume. The surgeons' postsurgical estimates of lung volume removed ranged from 30% to 33%. The percent difference between the surgeons' estimates and the computed lung volume removed as a percentage of the surgeons' estimates ranged from -72.3% to 57.0% with mean absolute difference of 29.7% (+/-20.7).

CONCLUSION

The preliminary findings of this study suggest that the proposed quantitative model should provide an objective measure of lung volume removed during LVRS that may be used to investigate the relationship between lung volume removed and outcome.