Comparison of clinical results for unilateral and bilateral thoracoscopic lung volume reduction

Twenty four-month follow-up after bullectomy, unilateral and bilateral lung volume reduction surgery: a single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive cases

PURPOSE

While pharmacologic therapy remains the cornerstone of lung emphysema treatment, surgery is an additional therapeutic option in selected patient groups with advanced emphysema. The aim of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is to improve lung function, exercise capacity, quality of life and survival. We sought to determine the therapeutic value of surgical resection in specific patients with lung emphysema.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was performed consisting of 58 patients with lung emphysema who underwent surgical intervention over a 10-year period and were followed for 2 years postoperatively. The clinical characteristics recorded were FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 s), the 6-min walk test (6-MWT), the Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC), body mass index (BMI) and quality of life prior to and 6, 12 and 24 months after surgical intervention. Moreover, all peri- and post-operative complications were noted.

RESULTS

Out of 58 emphysema patients (72% male, FEV1 (L) 2.21 ± 0.17, RV (L) 3.39 ± 0.55), 19 underwent surgical bullectomy, 31 unilateral LVRS and 8 sequential bilateral LVRS. Six months after surgery, there was a statistically significant improvement in FEV1, RV, TLC, 6-MWT and mMRC. Over a period of 12 to 24 months postoperatively, clinical benefit gradually declines most likely due to COPD progression but patients still experienced a significant improvement in FEV1. The most common postoperative complications were persistent air leakage (> 7 days), arrhythmia and subcutaneous emphysema in 60%, 51.6% and 22.4%, respectively. No deaths were observed after surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

In a selected patient population, surgery led to significant improvement of lung function parameters, exercise capacity and quality of life. Over a period of 12 to 24 months postoperatively, clinical benefit gradually decreased most likely due to COPD progression.

Staged unilateral lung volume reduction surgery: from mini-invasive to minimalist treatment strategies

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) entailing unilateral or bilateral non-anatomical resection of severely damaged emphysematous tissue carried out by thoracoscopic or open surgical approaches, under general anesthesia with single-lung ventilation, has resulted in significant and long-lasting clinical and functional benefit. Unfortunately, the morbidity rates reported by simultaneous bilateral resectional LVRS has led to raise criticism regarding its cost-effectiveness and has stimulated in recent years the development of less invasive bronchoscopic and surgical non-resectional methods of treatment that are preferentially performed in a staged unilateral fashion. We had previously proposed an innovative LVRS modality, which did not entail any resection of lung tissue and was electively carried out according to a staged unilateral strategy by a multiport thoracoscopic access, through thoracic epidural anesthesia in conscious, spontaneously ventilating patients (awake LVRS). The awake LVRS resulted in significant clinical benefit paralleling that achieved by the resectional method with lower morbidity rates and shorter hospital stay. Moreover, the awake LVRS proved also suitable to be employed in stringently selected patients to perform redo procedures following previous successful bilateral LVRS. More recently, in order to minimize the global surgery- and anesthesia-related traumas, we have modified our original non-resectional method by adopting a single thoracoscopic access as well as an anesthesia protocol entailing use of a simple intercostal block with target control sedation, to realize an ultra-minimally invasive or minimalist LVRS. Hence, a deeper investigation of the pros and cons of staged unilateral LVRS strategies as well as of the novel surgical non-resectional and redo LVRS is warranted in order to verify, the optimal strategies of treatment, which will prove to reduce the typical LVRS-related morbidity while assuring the most durable benefit in patients with advanced emphysema.

Outcomes in lung transplantation after previous lung volume reduction surgery in a contemporary cohort

OBJECTIVES

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) provides palliation and improved quality of life in select patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The effect of previous LVRS on lung transplant outcomes has been inadequately studied. We report our experience in the largest single institution series of these combined procedures.

METHODS

The records of 472 patients with COPD undergoing lung transplantation or LVRS between 1995 and 2010 were reviewed. Outcomes of patients undergoing transplant after LVRS were compared with outcomes of patients undergoing transplant or LVRS alone. Survival was compared using log-rank tests and the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Demographics, comorbidities, and spirometry were similar at the time of transplantation. Patients who had undergone lung transplant after LVRS had longer transplant operative times (mean 4.4 vs 5.6 hours; P = .020) and greater hospital length of stay (mean 17.6 vs 29.1 days; P = .005). Thirty-day mortality and major morbidity were similar. Posttransplant survival was reduced for transplant after LVRS (median, 49 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 16, 85 months) compared with transplant alone (median, 96 months; 95% CI, 82, 106 months; P = .008). The composite benefit of combined procedures, defined as bridge from LVRS to transplant of 55 months and posttransplant survival of 49 months (total 104 months), was comparable with survival of patients undergoing either procedure alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung transplant after LVRS leads to minimal additional perioperative risk. The reduced posttransplant survival in patients undergoing combined procedures is in contradistinction to reports from other smaller series. When determining the best surgical treatment for patients with more severe disease, the benefit of LVRS before transplant should be weighed against the consequence of reduced posttransplant survival.

[Lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema and bullous pulmonary emphysema]

The improvement of respiratory symptoms for emphysematous patients by surgery is a concept that has evolved over time. Initially used for giant bullae, this surgery was then applied to patients with diffuse microbullous emphysema. The physiological and pathological concepts underlying these surgical procedures are the same in both cases: improve respiratory performance by reducing the high intrapleural pressure. The functional benefit of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) in the severe diffuse emphysema has been validated by the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) and the later studies which allowed to identify prognostic factors. The quality of the clinical, morphological and functional data made it possible to develop recommendations now widely used in current practice. Surgery for giant bullae occurring on little or moderately emphysematous lung is often a simpler approach but also requires specialised support to optimize its results.

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.

Lung Volume Reduction Surgery

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have suggested that lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is superior to optimal medical therapy for selected subsets of patients with advanced emphysema. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with the exception of the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT), failed to enroll a sufficient number of patients to provide clinicians and patients with convincing outcome data on the usefulness of LVRS. It was postulated that a meta-analysis of these RCTs (3-12 months' follow up) may provide more compelling information on the value of LVRS in patients with emphysema.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE database between January 1994 and January 2004 for RCTs on LVRS was performed.

RESULTS

From a total of eight RCTs on record, six studies (306 patients) with 3- to 12-month follow up were deemed suitable for meta-analysis. Key baseline features of these RCT populations included heterogeneous emphysema, comparable inclusion/exclusion criteria and, in retrospect, low walking capacity as measured by the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD). This profile closely resembles NETT's 'predominantly upper lobe--low exercise tolerance emphysema' cohort. The LVRS arm of the meta-analysis population showed better results than the medical cohort in terms of pulmonary function (FEV(1) p < 0.0001, FVC p < 0.0001, residual volume p < 0.0001, total lung capacity p = 0.004), gas exchange (arterial partial pressure of oxygen p < 0.0001) and exercise capacity (6MWD p = 0.0002). Although information on quality-of-life measures was not sufficiently uniform to qualify for meta-analysis, a survey of available data revealed better results in the surgical than in the medical arms of each RCT. Mortality 6-12 months after random assignment to treatment was similar in the two study arms, suggesting that the operative mortality from LVRS was offset, within months, by deaths in the medical arm.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that a selected subset of patients with advanced, heterogeneous emphysema and low exercise tolerance (6MWD) experienced better outcomes from LVRS than from medical therapy.

[Lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema: a unilateral or bilateral approach?]

INTRODUCTION

Lung Volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is a recognized therapeutic option for patients presenting with severe and disabling pulmonary emphysema. Case selection is based upon clinical, morphological and functional criteria.

STATE OF THE ART

LVRS has shown promising results, with improvements in exercise capacity, pulmonary function and quality of life, in selected patients with severe and disabling emphysema. A variety of surgical techniques have been described. The procedure may be unilateral or bilateral, through a sternotomy or by a video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) technique. The controversial aspects of the surgical technique will be analysed and discussed in the following review.

PERSPECTIVES

A bilateral approach clearly offers a better functional improvement when compared to a unilateral procedure, however, the postoperative functional decline appears greater and more rapid after a bilateral procedure. A unilateral approach, with often less postoperative morbidity, allows the option to perform a future contra-lateral procedure in the event of further clinical or functional deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected cases LVRS is an effective treatment for severe pulmonary emphysema. Different surgical techniques have been described. Nowadays VATS is considered to be the technique of choice, with the option to carry out a future unilateral or bilateral procedure.

Historical perspectives

The history of surgery for emphysema is filled with numerous surgical attempts to improve the disorder. Although many of these procedures have proved to be futile, lung volume reduction surgery has now arrived. This article outlines the progression of procedures and the logic for which they were thought to be of benefit.

Treatment of patients with lung cancer and severe emphysema: lessons from lung volume reduction surgery

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is effective therapy for selected patients with end-stage emphysema. Surgery produces improved pulmonary function, increased exercise tolerance and enhanced quality of life. It has been shown to be superior to medical management over the short-term in randomized controlled trials. The experience gained by dealing with this select group of patients has had a substantial impact on management of lung cancer in some patients with advanced lung disease. Numerous surgical, anaesthetic, and nursing advances gained in dealing with lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) procedures now allow surgery to be considered as the optimal cancer management technique. For some carefully selected candidates, cancer resection and LVRS can be performed simultaneously, with dual benefits. The physiologic principles underlying LVRS and selection guidelines will be reviewed. The impact on cancer management and the current strategy at Toronto General Hospital will also be presented.

Lung volume reduction: where do we stand?

The concept of lung volume resection (LVR) was introduced in 1995 for the treatment of end-stage emphysema patients utilizing stapled resection through a median stenotomy approach. This article discusses this procedure and the trials that have been instituted. LVR might prove to be a viable alternative treatment modality for selected, end-stage emphysema patients in the future.

Outcomes of lung volume reduction surgery followed by lung transplantation: a matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has been demonstrated to provide symptomatic relief and to improve lung function in patients with end-stage emphysema. The goal of this study was to assess the additional morbidity associated with lung transplantation after LVRS for end-stage emphysema with regard to immediate postoperative outcomes, longitudinal spirometry, and survival rates compared to an age-, gender-, procedure-matched, and transplant time-matched cohort that had lung transplantation alone.

METHODS

We compared the postoperative and long-term outcomes of a sequential procedure cohort to a matched cohort to assess the possible added post-transplant morbidity.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients who underwent sequential LVRS (including 11 unilateral LVRS, 4 bilateral LVRS) and lung transplantation (ipsilateral in 7 and contralateral in 8) on average 28.1 +/- 17.2 months (median, 27.4 months; range, 3.7 to 61.7 months) later were assessed. No significant differences were noted in pretransplant demographics, post-transplant variables, longitudinal spirometric indices, or survival. A trend toward a lower pretransplant arterial carbon dioxide tension was apparent in the sequential procedure cohort. Group analysis revealed a significant increase in the number of patients requiring transfusion and in the total number of units transfused in patients undergoing ispsilateral transplantation after LVRS; a significant increase in the length of intensive care unit stay; and a trend toward an increase in the duration of hospital stay in patients undergoing lung transplantation within 18 months of LVRS.

CONCLUSIONS

In appropriate candidates, LVRS bridged the time to transplantation by an average of 28.1 +/- 17.2 months (median, 27.4 months; range, 3.7 to 61.7 months) without significantly increasing post-transplant morbidity or mortality. Furthermore, bilateral LVRS bridged the time to transplantation to a greater extent than unilateral LVRS (34.9 +/- 29.8 months; median, 32.1 months versus 25.4 +/- 16.3 months; median, 22.3 months; p = 0.23).

Thoracoscopy and transplantation: a new attractive tool

BACKGROUND

Transplanted patients on immunosuppressive treatment have an increased risk of infections or neoplasms. Transplantation candidates with infection or a suspected malignancy are excluded from transplantation. In patients already transplanted, thoracoscopy can resolve complications or treat the pulmonary pathology without compromising the precarious existing reactive equilibrium. These patients require an approach that is as least traumatic as possible.

METHODS

From September 1991 to December 2000, of 2068 videothoracoscopic procedures carried out at our hospital, 2 were in patients who had undergone transplantation and 3 in candidates for kidney, liver, and bone marrow transplantation. Starting from our personal experience in videothoracoscopy as a diagnostic and therapeutic approach, the possibilities of the method in the field of transplantation are reported by a review of the literature carried out by consulting the reference systems of the most important data banks.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, videothoracoscopy had a major impact on the management of candidates for transplant, because it allowed us to rule out or treat conditions that would have determined exclusion from a transplant program. In transplanted patients, videothoracoscopy allows a correct diagnosis and treatment with minimal trauma.

Psychiatric issues in pulmonary disease

This article has attempted to provide an overview of the clinical literature regarding the psychological issues facing patients with pulmonary disease, depending on when the illness begins in the life span, because different developmental tasks are disrupted. Patients must contend with side effects of medication that may mimic or exacerbate psychiatric disorders. The main drug interactions for psychiatrists to be aware of in this patient population occur between rifampin, or theophylline and psychotropic medications. In lung transplant recipients on cyclosporine therapy, the antidepressant drug nefazadone may cause increased cyclosporine levels. Psychiatrists must be aware of the risks, benefits, and survival statistics; educate patients; and ascertain whether the patient is competent to make medical decisions regarding treatment procedures.

Lobar volume reduction surgery: a method of increasing the lung cancer resection rate in patients with emphysema

BACKGROUND

Guidelines on patient selection for lung cancer resection identify a predicted postoperative forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppoFEV(1)) of <40% as a predictor of high risk. Experience with lung volume reduction surgery suggests that ppoFEV(1) may be underestimated in those with concomitant emphysema.

METHODS

Anatomical lobectomy was performed in 29 patients with a resectable lung cancer within a poorly perfused, hyperinflated emphysematous lobe identified by radionuclide perfusion scintigraphy and computed tomographic scanning. Perioperative changes in spirometric parameters at 3 months were compared in 14 patients (group A) of mean age 69 years (range 48-78) with ppoFEV(1) <40% (mean (SD) 31.4 (7)%) and 15 patients (group B) with ppoFEV(1) >40% (mean (SD) 47 (5)%). The correlation between predicted and actual postoperative FEV(1) was also assessed.

RESULTS

In group B there was a significant perioperative reduction in FEV(1) (p=0.01) but in group A FEV(1) did not change significantly after lobectomy (p=0.87); mean difference in perioperative change between groups A and B 331 ml (95% CI 150 to 510). Despite the difference in ppoFEV(1) between the groups, there was no difference in actual FEV(1) at 3 months. In-hospital mortality was 14% in group A and zero in group B, but at a median follow up of 12 (range 6-40) months there was no difference in survival between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Selection for lung cancer resection in patients with emphysema using standard calculations of ppoFEV(1) may be misleading. The effect of lobar volume reduction allows for an extension of the selection criteria.

Lung volume reduction surgery in emphysema: a systematic review

The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) in patients with emphysema. Studies on LVRS to August 2000 were identified using MEDLINE, Embase, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Library. Human studies of patients with upper, lower or diffuse distributions of emphysema were included. All types of bullous emphysema were excluded. A surgeon and researcher independently assessed the retrieved articles for their inclusion in the review. When LVRS was compared with medical management, at 2 years LVRS was associated with a higher FEV1 and at least equivalent survival. The use of staple excision of selected areas of lung appeared to be more efficacious than laser ablation. There is insufficient evidence to show preference for median sternotomy or videoscopically assisted thoracotomy, as the more safe and efficacious procedure. In highly selected patients with emphysema LVRS is deemed an acceptable treatment. To fully evaluate the safety and efficacy of LVRS, outcomes beyond 2 years must be included. The results of prospective randomized trials between medical management and LVRS, now in progress, are essential before a final assessment can be made.

Lung function 5 yr after lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema

Current datum more than 2 yr after lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) for emphysema is limited. This prospective study evaluates pre-LVRS baseline and 5-yr results in 26 symptomatic patients (mean age 67 +/- 6 yr) (mean +/- SD) who underwent bilateral, targeted upper lobe stapled LVRS using video-assisted thoracoscopy. Baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) was 0.7 +/- 0.2 L (mean +/- SD), 29 +/- 10% predicted. Following LVRS, with none lost to follow-up, mortality due to respiratory failure at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 yr was 4%, 4%, 19%, 31%, 46%, and 58%, respectively. Increase above baseline for FEV(1) > 200 ml and/or FVC > 400 ml at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 yr post-LVRS was noted in 73%, 46%, 35%, 27%, and 8% of all patients; decrease in dyspnea grade >/= 1 in 88%, 69%, 46%, 27%, and 15%; and elimination of initial oxygen dependence in 18 patients in 78%, 50%, 33%, 22%, and 0%, respectively. Expiratory airflow improved due to the increase in both lung elastic recoil and small airway intraluminal caliber. Five patients decreased FEV(1) 141 +/- 60 ml/yr and FVC 102 +/- 189 ml/yr over 3.8 +/- 1.2 yr post-LVRS, similar to their pre-LVRS rate of decline. In the 11 patients who survived 5 yr, at 0.5-1.0 yr post-LVRS peak increase in FEV(1) was 438 +/- 366 ml, with a decline of 149 +/- 157 ml the following year and 78 +/- 59 ml/yr over 4.0-4.5 yr. Bilateral LVRS provided palliative clinical and physiological improvement in 9 of 26 patients at 3 yr, 7 at 4 yr, and 2 at 5 yr.