Repeated lung volume reduction surgery is successful in selected patients

[Surgical or bronchoscopic lung volume reduction for emphysema therapy]

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

[Treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema]

We summarized the available data on therapeutic, surgical and endoscopic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema that may be used like a bridge to lung transplantation. Treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema is expensive. Certain limitations in lung transplantation make to create new methods of treatment of severe emphysema. However, one should be ready for possible complications and carefully select patients for certain treatment to avoid false negative results. Reducing costs or developing cheaper treatments is important for the future and availability of care. The risks and complications associated with surgical treatment of emphysema can make endoscopic surgery preferable for these patients, and this undoubtedly requires further research.

Lung volume reduction surgery as salvage procedure after previous use of endobronchial valves

OBJECTIVES

Lung volume reduction (LVR) is an efficient and approved treatment for selected emphysema patients. There is some evidence that repeated LVR surgery (LVRS) might be beneficial, but there are no current data on LVRS after unsuccessful bronchoscopic LVR (BLVR) with endobronchial valves (EBVs). We hypothesize good outcome of LVRS after BLVR with valves.

METHODS

In this study, we retrospectively investigated all patients who underwent LVRS between 2015 and 2019 at 2 centres after previous unsuccessful EBV treatment. They were further divided into subgroups with patients who never achieved the intended improvement after BLVR (primary failure) and patients whose benefit was fading over time due to the natural development of emphysema (secondary failure). Patients with severe air leak after BLVR and immediate concomitant LVRS and fistula closure thereafter were analysed separately.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients were included. Of these, 19 patients had primary failure, 15 secondary failure and 4 were treated as an emergency due to severe air leak. At 3 months after LVRS, forced expiratory volume in 1 s had improved significantly by 12.5% (P = 0.011) and there was no 90-day mortality. Considering subgroups, patients with primary failure after BLVR seem to profit more than those with secondary failure. Patients with severe air leak after BLVR did not profit from fistula closure with concomitant LVRS.

CONCLUSIONS

LVRS after previous BLVR with EBVs can provide significant clinical improvement with low morbidity, although results might not be as good as after primary LVRS.

[Extracorporeal Lung Support in Thoracic Surgery: Basics and Pathophysiology]

Extracorporeal lung support (ECLS) is of increasing importance in general thoracic surgery. Different modes of ECLS may be applied in several situations throughout the perioperative phase and are adapted to the individual patient's needs and the planned surgical procedures. ECLS is not a static procedure and should be always evaluated according to the present condition of the patient. Therefore, it is essential to understand the pathophysiology of the disease and the different ECLS modes, as well as the different cannulation options, in order to be able to use the different escalation and de-escalation techniques in accordance with the clinical situation.

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 transplantation for emphysema

Lung transplantation (LT) is proved to be effective in patients with end-stage lung disease who are failing optimal therapy. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (emphysema) is the most common indication for adult lung transplantation. As most patients with emphysema (EMP) can survive long term, it could be difficult to decide which patient should be listed for LT. LT is a complex surgery. Therefore, it is extremely important to choose a recipient in whom expected survival is at less equal or comparable to the survival without surgery. This paper reviews patient selection, bridging strategies until lung transplantation, surgical approach and choice of the procedure, and functional outcome in emphysema recipients.

Patient-directed Volume Reduction for Emphysema: Sequential Surgical and Endobronchial Techniques

BACKGROUND

Lung volume reduction (LVR) surgery has traditionally been performed as a 1-stage bilateral procedure or staged at a predetermined interval. However to maximize the overall benefit we have allowed the patient to determine the timing of further interventions and have added endobronchial LVR into the protocol. We have reviewed the long-term outcome.

METHODS

Three hundred thirty-one LVR procedures were performed on 254 patients (median age, 61 years [range, 23-79]) with baseline predicted lung function of (mean ± SD) forced expiratory volume in 1 second 28% ± 11% and residual volume 253% ± 53%. The initial procedure was by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in 236 patients (unilateral, 227; bilateral, 9), by open surgery in 5, and by endobronchial valve insertion in 13. Sixty-four patients received a second and 13 a third LVR procedure. The median time interval between first and third stage was 5.8 years (range, 1.9-10) RESULTS: In the subgroup of patients who underwent staged procedures there was a significant improvement in predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second from 28% at baseline to 34% up to 6 years. There was sustained reduction in static lung volumes up to 8 years: Predicted residual volume remained reduced from 259% to 189%. There were sustained improvements over baseline in health status: EuroQol-5D improved from 50 ± 26 to 62 ± 23 (P < .01) for up to 5 years and the Short Form 36-item questionnaire for up to 9 years. Overall 30-day mortality was 3%. Median survival was 5.6 years (95% confidence interval, 4.7-6.9).

CONCLUSIONS

A program of staged unilateral procedures of LVR has resulted in sustained benefits for up to 9 years in physiology and health status.

Bronchoscopic thermal vapor ablation after unsuccessful lung volume reduction surgery: A case report

Compared to surgery there is no evidence on bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (LVR) in patients with fading benefit after LVR surgery. CASE REPORT: We present a case of 64-year old female patient who was successfully treated with bronchial thermal vapor ablation (BTVA) after previous ineffective lung volume reduction (LVR) surgery several months earlier. CONCLUSIONS: Bronchoscopic LVR, in particular BTVA, might be considered in patients with fading or missing effects after previous LVRS. At least, the safety profile of BTVA seems not be adversely affected by previous LVRS, when proper patient selection and procedure planning are ensured.

Bronchoscopic treatment of emphysema: an update

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the major causes of disability and mortality. The efficacy of maximal medical treatment, although effective at the early stages of the disease, becomes limited when extensive alveolar destruction is the main cause of respiratory failure. At this stage of the disease more aggressive options, when feasible, should be considered. Lung transplantation and lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) are currently available for a selected group of patients. Endoscopic alternatives to LVRS have progressively gained acceptance and are currently employed in patients with COPD. They promote lung deflation searching the same outcome as LVRS in terms of respiratory mechanics, ameliorating the distressing symptom of chronic dyspnea by decreasing the physiological dead space.

Lung volume reduction followed by lung transplantation-considerations on selection criteria and outcome

Lung transplantation (LuTX) and lung volume reduction (LVR), either surgical (LVRS: lung volume reduction surgery) or endoscopic (ELVR: endoscopic lung volume reduction), are established therapies in the treatment of end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Careful patient selection is crucial for each intervention. If these techniques are sequentially applied there is a paucity of available data and individual center experiences vary depending on details in selection criteria and operative technique. This review aims to summarize the published data with a focus on LuTX after LVRS. This review covers patient selection for LuTX and LVR, technical considerations, limitations and outcomes. Published literature was identified by systematic search on Medline and appropriate papers were reviewed. Seven case reports/series, 7 comparative observational studies and one multicenter database analysis incorporating a total of 284 patients with LuTX and LVR were evaluated. Prior LVR can significantly affect intraoperative and postoperative risks after subsequent LuTX. Careful patient selection and timing and the choice of appropriate techniques such as minimal invasive LVRS and using ECMO as extracorporeal support during LuTX if required can minimize those risks, ultimately leading to very good postoperative outcomes in terms of lung function and survival. LVRS has the potential to delay listing and to bridge patients to LuTX by improving their physical condition while on the waiting list. After single lung transplantation (SLuTX) contralateral LVRS can counteract the deleterious effects of native lung hyperinflation (NLH). LVR and LuTX are adjunct therapies in the treatment of end-stage COPD. The combination of both can safely be considered in selected patients.

Lung volume reduction surgery beyond the NETT selection criteria

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) for symptomatic patients with advanced emphysema was proven to be successful in a large randomized multi-center trial (NETT) and in several smaller randomized single center trials. This evidence primarily concerns patients with heterogeneous, upper-lobe predominant emphysema and low exercise tolerance within certain selection criteria regarding lung function values. As the most important effect of LVRS is generated by reducing the hyperinflation, even patients with homogeneous emphysema morphology profit from the procedure. Simultaneously, by removing distended and functionless areas in heterogeneous emphysema, also patients with seriously impaired diffusion capacity, moderate pulmonary arterial hypertension, a history of previous LVRS and alpha-1-antitrypsin-deficiency (AATD) can be considered as candidates for (re-)-LVRS. This article summarizes indications for LVRS in these various subtypes of emphysema patients.

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.

Nonintubated Subxiphoid Bilateral Redo Lung Volume Reduction Surgery

This report describes a nonintubated, bilateral thoracoscopic redo lung volume reduction surgery procedure through a single subxiphoid access in a patient who previously underwent one-stage bilateral volume reduction for upper lobe-predominant heterogeneous emphysema 19 years earlier. The patient was uneventfully discharged on postoperative day 2, and meaningful improvement in respiratory function and exercise tolerance occurred at 3 months postoperatively. This novel surgical approach may merge the potential benefits of a subxiphoid incision for bilateral treatment, nonintercostal passage of chest drains, and adoption of a nonintubated anesthesia protocol.

Single-Site Cannulation Venovenous Extracorporeal CO2 Removal as Bridge to Lung Volume Reduction Surgery in End-Stage Lung Emphysema

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is an important treatment option for end-stage lung emphysema in carefully selected patients. Here, we first describe the application of low-flow venovenous extracorporeal CO2 removal (LFVV-ECCO2R) as bridge to LVRS in patients with end-stage lung emphysema experiencing severe hypercapnia caused by acute failure of the breathing pump. Between March and October 2015, n = 4 patients received single-site LFVV-ECCO2R as bridge to LVRS. Indication for extracorporeal lung support was severe hypercapnia with respiratory acidosis and acute breathing pump failure. Two patients required continuous mechanical ventilation over a temporary tracheostomy and were bed ridden. The other two patients were nearly immobile because of severe dyspnea at rest. Length of preoperative ECCO2R was 14 (1-42) days. All patients underwent unilateral LVRS. Anatomical resection of the right (n = 3) or left (n = 1) upper lobe was performed. Postoperatively, both patients with previous mechanical ventilatory support were successfully weaned. ECCO2R in patients with end-stage lung emphysema experiencing severe hypercapnia caused by acute breathing pump failure is a safe and effective bridging tool to LVRS. In such patients, radical surgery leads to a significant improvement of the performance status and furthermore facilitates respiratory weaning from mechanical ventilation.

Sequential Bilateral Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction With One-Way Valves for Heterogeneous Emphysema

BACKGROUND

Clinical benefits of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with one-way endobronchial valves have been reported for heterogeneous emphysema after unilateral treatment. We assessed the potential role of contralateral treatment to prolong the benefits obtained with the first procedure.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multicenter study including consecutive patients with heterogeneous emphysema undergoing bronchoscopic valves deployment during the last 4 years. Patients were split into two groups depending on the procedure (unilateral versus bilateral). The intergroup differences were evaluated to assess the viability, effectiveness, and safety of the bilateral procedure.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were enrolled. Of these, 14 (28%) had a sequential bilateral procedure mainly due to loss of the clinical benefits obtained with the first treatment. A significant improvement of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (p < 0.05), forced vital capacity (p < 0.05), residual volume (p < 0.05), 6-minute walking test (p < 0.05), and St. George respiratory questionnaire (p < 0.02) was achieved after the second procedure. These results were maintained during follow-up. There was no significant difference regarding the changes of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (p = 0.4), forced vital capacity (p = 0.08), residual volume (p = 0.9), 6-minute walking test (p = 0.3), and St. George respiratory questionnaire (p = 0.1) between the bilateral and unilateral groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A sequential bilateral approach seems to be a valid strategy to improve respiratory function in patients with bilateral heterogeneous emphysema who have lost the benefits obtained with the first procedure.