Is preoperative hypercapnia a justified exclusion criterion for lung volume reduction surgery?

Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction with One-Way Valves in Patients with Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Hypercapnia

BACKGROUND

Robust clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) with one-way valves in patients with severe lung emphysema with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare patient characteristics, clinical outcome measures, and incidences of adverse events between patients with severe COPD undergoing ELVR with one-way valves and with either a partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2) of ≤45 mm Hg or with pCO2 >45 mm Hg.

METHODS

This was a multicentre prospective study of patients with severe lung disease who were evaluated based on lung function, exercise capacity (6-min walk test [6-MWT]), and quality-of-life tests.

RESULTS

Patients with pCO2 ≤45 mm Hg (n = 157) and pCO2 >45 mm Hg (n = 40) showed similar baseline characteristics. Patients with pCO2 ≤45 mm Hg demonstrated a significant increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (p < 0.001), a significant decrease in residual volume (RV) (p < 0.001), and significant improvements in the quality of life and 6-MWT at the 3-month follow-up. Patients with pCO2 >45 mm Hg had significant improvements in RV only (p < 0.05). There was a significant decrease in pCO2 between baseline and follow-up in hypercapnic patients, relative to the decrease in patients with pCO2 ≤45 mm Hg (p = 0.008). Patients who were more hypercapnic at baseline showed a greater reduction in pCO2 after valve placement (r = -0.38, p < 0.001). Pneumothorax was the most common adverse event in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ELVR with one-way valves seems clinically beneficial with a remarkably good safety profile for patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure.

Lung volume reduction surgery in hypercapnic patients: a single-center experience from China

Background

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has shown early promise as a palliative therapy in severe emphysema, but with a controversy over its indications. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients with hypercapnia should be excluded from LVRS.

Methods

Total 15 cases of severe emphysema with the level of PaCO₂ exceeding 50 mmHg were retrospectively studied. Their basic characteristics, pulmonary function, preoperative and postoperative PaCO₂ level as well as postoperative complications were calculated statistically.

Results

All of the 15 patients received video-assisted thoracoscopic LVRS and finally discharged uneventfully from hospital after the surgical procedures. Nine cases were supported by mechanical ventilation after surgery with the median duration of 44 hours. One of them was treated by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) both during surgery and the first 4 days after surgery. The result of blood gas analysis on 3 months after hospital discharge decreased than that before surgery (60.07 vs. 55.61 mmHg, P=0.076), but without statistical significance.

Conclusions

The emphysematous patients with hypercapnia should not be excluded from the benefits of LVRS.

The role of the multidisciplinary emphysema team meeting in the provision of lung volume reduction

Despite a positive result in favour of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), from one of the largest randomized controlled trial in thoracic surgery, the identification of poor outcome in certain high-risk groups has resulted in a worldwide decrease in its utilization. Patient selection is the key to successful lung volume reduction which, with the advent of a range of less invasive techniques, has become more complex. The greater variety of potential therapeutic options will inevitably lead to debate amongst treating clinicians. Therefore, to be able to make an informed decision on the best treatment for an individual patient, discussion between clinicians in a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting is advisable. The membership of this MDT must include all specialists involved in assessment and subsequent treatment of the patient including non-medical input. There must be robust administrative organization and record of decisions together with inter-disciplinary communication of decisions. Whilst ultimately it is the patient who will benefit from the MDT, individual participants will enhance their continued professional development. The referral pathway into the MDT must be clearly defined and disseminated. Which investigations are to be performed by referrers and which by the specialist centre need to be in an agreed protocol. Specialist input may be required to interpret the results of the latest assessment tools. The decision-making process of the MDT begins with confirmation of basic selection criteria but addresses three main areas of discussion: the definition of target areas of lung for reduction; the presence of collateral, interlobar ventilation and an assessment of individualized risk and benefit. The emphysema or lung volume reduction MDT has been established in several specialist units and its benefits include an increase in referrals overall for LVR. The establishment of an MDT approach to lung volume reduction has now been incorporated into several national guidelines.