Lung volume reduction or lung transplantation for end-stage pulmonary emphysema?

Lung volume reduction surgery as a bridge to lung transplantation

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) improves lung function, exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with advanced emphysema. In some patients with emphysema who are candidates for lung transplantation, LVRS is an alternative treatment option to lung transplantation, or may be used as a bridge to lung transplantation. Generally accepted criteria for LVRS include severe non-reversible airflow obstruction due to emphysema associated with significant evidence of lung hyperinflation and air trapping. Both high resolution computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest and quantitative ventilation/perfusion scan are used to identify lung regions with severe emphysema which would be used as targets for lung resection. Bilateral LVRS is the preferred surgical approach compared with the unilateral procedure because of better functional outcome. Lung transplantation is the preferred surgical treatment in patients with emphysema with alpha1 antitrypsin deficiency and in patients with very severe disease who have homogeneous emphysema pattern on CT scan of the chest or very low diffusion capacity.

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.

Surgery for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the place for lung volume reduction and transplantation

Lung volume reduction surgery and lung transplantation have been shown to improve lung function, exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with advanced emphysema. Because the indications for both surgical procedures overlap, lung volume reduction surgery may be used as an alternative treatment or as a "bridge" to lung transplantation. In this article, we discuss patient selection, clinical outcome parameters, and the morbidity and mortality associated with each surgical procedure. We focus on the different preoperative predictors of good and poor outcomes after lung volume reduction surgery, the role of pulmonary rehabilitation, and the preferred surgical techniques for lung volume reduction surgery. An overview of the postoperative care of emphysema patients who undergo single-lung transplantation is also discussed.

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.

[Bilateral lung reduction by video-assisted thoracoscopy in a patient with non-bullous pulmonary emphysema and laryngeal neoplasia]

Lung reduction has been show to be a promising treatment for the final phases of non-bullous pulmonary emphysema. The role of video-assisted thoracoscopy (VAT) in this disease has not yet been established. We report a case of bilateral non-bullous pulmonary emphysema in which transplantation was ruled out because of laryngeal neoplasm treated three months earlier. Using VAT, we performed bilateral lung reduction in the apical zones with good therapeutic results. We find that in patients reduction by VAT, although not a curative treatment, leads to immediate postoperative improvement in lung function and dyspnea, and does not exclude the possibility of later performing lung transplantation.