Diffusing capacity limitations of the extent of lung volume reduction surgery in an animal model of emphysema

BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF AUTOLOGOUS BONE MARROW MONONUCLEAR CELL TRANSPLANTATION AGAINST ELASTASE-INDUCED EMPHYSEMA IN RABBITS

The authors investigated whether autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell (BMC) transplantation via the left and right main bronchi would mitigate elastase-induced pulmonary emphysema in rabbits. Four weeks after elastase administration, rabbits also receiving BMCs showed significantly better pulmonary function (FVC, FEV100, FEVPEF) and smaller alveolar airspaces, as indicated by a smaller mean linear intercept, than those receiving porcine pancreatic elastase (PPE) (200 U/kg) alone via the left and right main bronchi. BMCs also significantly reduced cell counts in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, the incidence of apoptotic (TUNEL-positive) cells and matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2 expression, while increasing numbers of proliferative (Ki-67-positive) cells. Thus, BMCs may inhibit the progression to emphysema by attenuating inflammation, MMP-2 expression, and apoptosis, while enhancing alveolar cell proliferation.

Patient and surgical factors influencing air leak after lung volume reduction surgery: lessons learned from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial

BACKGROUND

Although staple line buttressing is advocated to reduce air leak after lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), its effectiveness is unknown. We sought to identify risk factors for air leak and its duration and to estimate its medical consequences for selecting optimal perioperative technique(s), such as buttressing technique, to preempt or treat post-LVRS air leak.

METHODS

Detailed air leak data were available for 552 of 580 patients receiving bilateral stapled LVRS in the National Emphysema Treatment Trial. Risk factors for prevalence and duration of air leak were identified by logistic and hazard function analyses. Medical consequences were estimated in propensity-matched pairs with and without air leak.

RESULTS

Within 30 days of LVRS, 90% of patients developed air leak (median duration = 7 days). Its occurrence was more common and duration prolonged in patients with lower diffusing capacity (p = 0.06), upper lobe disease (p = 0.04), and important pleural adhesions (p = 0.007). Duration was also protracted in Caucasians (p < 0.0001), patients using inhaled steroids (p = 0.004), and those with lower 1-second forced expiratory volume (p = 0.0003). Surgical approach, buttressing, stapler brand, and intraoperative adjunctive procedures were not associated with fewer or less prolonged air leaks (p >/= 0.2). Postoperative complications occurred more often in matched patients experiencing air leak (57% vs 30%, p = 0.0004), and postoperative stay was longer (11.8 +/- 6.5 days vs 7.6 +/- 4.4 days, p = 0.0005).

CONCLUSIONS

Air leak accompanies LVRS in 90% of patients, is often prolonged, and is associated with a more complicated and protracted hospital course. Its occurrence and duration are associated with characteristics of patients and their disease, not with a specific surgical technique.

Patient selection for lung volume reduction surgery

LVRS represents a valid surgical option for a limited number of patients who have symptomatic emphysema. The results of recent controlled studies have provided a realistic view of LVRS outcomes and yielded a validated algorithm for selection of optimal candidates for surgery. Furthermore, the NETT has provided simultaneously collected cost data that have provided a unique view of the costs and benefits of LVRS in patients who have advanced emphysema. Additional data collection will better define the long-term benefits of such surgical intervention in patients who have COPD.

Patients at high risk of death after lung-volume-reduction surgery

BACKGROUND

Lung-volume-reduction surgery is a proposed treatment for emphysema, but optimal selection criteria have not been defined. The National Emphysema Treatment Trial is a randomized, multicenter clinical trial comparing lung-volume-reduction surgery with medical treatment.

METHODS

After evaluation and pulmonary rehabilitation, we randomly assigned patients to undergo lung-volume-reduction surgery or receive medical treatment. Outcomes were monitored by an independent data and safety monitoring board.

RESULTS

A total of 1033 patients had been randomized by June 2001. For 69 patients who had a forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) that was no more than 20 percent of their predicted value and either a homogeneous distribution of emphysema on computed tomography or a carbon monoxide diffusing capacity that was no more than 20 percent of their predicted value, the 30-day mortality rate after surgery was 16 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 8.2 to 26.7 percent), as compared with a rate of 0 percent among 70 medically treated patients (P<0.001). Among these high-risk patients, the overall mortality rate was higher in surgical patients than medical patients (0.43 deaths per person-year vs. 0.11 deaths per person-year; relative risk, 3.9; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.9 to 9.0). As compared with medically treated patients, survivors of surgery had small improvements at six months in the maximal workload (P= 0.06), the distance walked in six minutes (P=0.03), and FEV1 (P<0.001), but a similar health-related quality of life. The results of the analysis of functional outcomes for all patients, which accounted for deaths and missing data, did not favor either treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Caution is warranted in the use of lung-volume-reduction surgery in patients with emphysema who have a low FEV1 and either homogeneous emphysema or a very low carbon monoxide diffusing capacity. These patients are at high risk for death after surgery and also are unlikely to benefit from the surgery.

Lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema

Over the past decades, extensive literature has been published regarding surgical therapies for advanced COPD. Lung-volume reduction surgery would be an option for a significantly larger number of patients than classic bullectomy or lung transplantation. Unfortunately, the initial enthusiasm has been tempered by major questions regarding the optimal surgical approach, safety, firm selection criteria, and confirmation of long-term benefits. In fact, the long-term follow-up reported in patients undergoing classical bullectomy should serve to caution against unbridled enthusiasm for the indiscriminate application of LVRS. Those with the worst long-term outcome despite favourable short-term improvements after bullectomy have consistently been those with the lowest pulmonary function and significant emphysema in the remaining lung who appear remarkably similar to those being evaluated for LVRS. With this in mind, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute partnered with the Health Care Finance Administration to establish a multicenter, prospective, randomized study of intensive medical management, including pulmonary rehabilitation versus the same plus bilateral (by MS or VATS), known as the National Emphysema Treatment Trial. The primary objectives are to determine whether LVRS improves survival and exercise capacity. The secondary objectives will examine effects on pulmonary function and HRQL, compare surgical techniques, examine selection criteria for optimal response, identify criteria to determine those who are at prohibitive surgical risk, and examine long-term cost effectiveness. It is hoped that data collected from this novel, multicenter collaboration will place the role of LVRS in a clearer perspective for the physician caring for patients with advanced emphysema.

Lung volume reduction surgery does not improve diaphragmatic contractile properties or atrophy in hamsters with elastase-induced emphysema

It is claimed that lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) improves inspiratory muscle function. As diaphragm structure and function are not directly appraisable in patients, we studied the effects of LVRS on the diaphragm in vitro contractile properties and morphology in hamsters with elastase-induced emphysema. Four months after intratracheal instillation of elastase (40 U/100 g), hamsters underwent either bilateral LVRS (LVRS, n = 11) or a sham operation (SHAM, n = 8). Four animals died during the perioperative period in LVRS (n = 7). Hamsters instilled with saline served as control (CTL, n = 8). Animals were studied at the age of 9 mo. LVRS was associated with a significant 25% decrease in functional residual capacity compared to SHAM (p < 0.05). Compared with CTL, LVRS and SHAM showed a significant 18% and 14% reduction in diaphragm mass, respectively (p = 0.02). LVRS had a significantly decreased twitch tension compared to CTL and SHAM (p < 0.01). Both LVRS and SHAM showed increased resistance to muscle fatigue compared with CTL. The histochemical analysis revealed a significant shift from type IIx/b toward type IIa fibers in LVRS and SHAM compared with CTL. In conclusion, emphysema is associated with functional adaptations but LVRS does not appear to beneficially alter the diaphragm contractile and morphological characteristics in hamsters with elastase-induced emphysema.

Short- and long-term results after lung volume reduction surgery

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is a palliative surgical procedure for patients with severe emphysema. Resection of nonfunctional emphysematous lung tissue has been reported to relieve breathlessness and to improve quality of life for many patients by improving lung elastic recoil, respiratory muscle function, and ventilation-perfusion matching. However, the risks and benefits of LVRS remain controversial, as mainly short-term data are available for carefully selected groups of LVRS patients and no prospective, randomized trials for LVRS with pulmonary rehabilitation versus optimal medical therapy plus pulmonary rehabilitation have been reported. Bilateral staple resection for LVRS appears to be superior to use of a laser or unilateral approach in the short term, but relatively little data exist on long-term outcomes. Additional clinical investigation is required to determine whether LVRS should be a widely accepted therapy for severe emphysema.