Predictors of clinical outcome in emphysema patients with atelectasis following endoscopic valve therapy: A retrospective study

Endobronchial Valve Replacements in Patients with Advanced Emphysema After Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction

Purpose

Up to 41% of patients with endobronchial valve implantation need revision bronchoscopies and valve replacements most likely due to valve dysfunction or lack of benefit. So far, no data is available whether valve replacements lead to the desired lobar volume reduction and therapy benefit.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of patients with endobronchial valve implantation and at least one valve replacement. Indications and number of revision bronchoscopies and valve replacements were evaluated. Therapy benefit regarding lung function and exercise capacity as well as development of complete lobar atelectasis was investigated and possible predictors identified.

Results

We identified 73 patients with 1-12 revision bronchoscopies and 1-5 valve replacements. The main indication for revision bronchoscopy in this group was lack of therapy benefit (44.2%). Lung function and exercise capacity showed improvements in about one-third of patients even years after the initial implantation. A total of 26% of all patients showed a complete lobar atelectasis at the end of the observation period, 56.2% had developed lung volume reduction. The logistic regression revealed the development of a previous complete lobar atelectasis as predictor for a complete lobar atelectasis at final follow-up. Oral cortisone long-term therapy was also shown as predictive factor. The probability for a final complete lobar atelectasis was 69.2% if a lobar atelectasis had developed before.

Conclusion

Valve replacements are more likely to be beneficial in patients who develop a re-aeration of a previous lobar atelectasis following valve implantation. Every decision for revision bronchoscopy must be taken carefully.

Inhaled Steroids, Sex and Emphysema Index - Clinical Parameters with Impact on the Effectiveness of Valve Implantation in Patients with Severe Emphysema

Aims and Objectives

Many patients with chronic obstructive lung disease suffer from emphysema. Valve implantation may be a reasonable method in patients presenting advanced emphysema and absent interlobar collateral ventilation (CV). However, other clinical parameters influencing the effectiveness of endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) are not well known.

Methods

COPD patients with advanced emphysema who received valve implantation in 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The following characteristics were collected prior to valve implantation: age, sex, body mass index, presence of allergies, use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), lung function parameters, diffusion capacity, 6-minute walk distance (6-MWD), blood gases, COHb, smoking history, and emphysema index (quantitative multi-detector computed tomography). Three months following valve implantation, lung function parameters, diffusion capacity, 6-MWD and blood gases were measured. In this analysis, we evaluated the impact of these variables on an increase in FEV₁ and 6-MWT as well as a decrease in RV three months after valve implantation.

Results

Overall, 77 COPD patients (57% male, mean age 66, mean FEV₁ 32%, mean RV 259%) who underwent valve therapy were enrolled. At 3-month follow-up, patients experienced a mean FEV₁ increase of 0.09 ± 0.21 L, a mean RV decrease of 0.42 ± 1.80 L and a mean improvement of 8.3 ± 57 m in the 6-MWT. Overall, ICS, sex and emphysema index had an impact on the outcome following ELVR: ICS medication was associated with inferior FEV₁ outcome. The higher the emphysema index, the less the RV reduction. Sex was a predictor for change of FEV₁ (%), RV (L), and 6-MWT: male patients seem to benefit less than female patients from valve implantation.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that ICS, emphysema index and sex are clinical parameters that may be associated with inferior outcome following ELVR. Further studies have to confirm these results to improve patient selection and clinical outcome of ELVR.

Endobronchial Valve (Zephyr) Treatment in Homogeneous Emphysema: One-Year Results from the IMPACT Randomized Clinical Trial

RATIONALE

The long-term safety and effectiveness of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with Zephyr endobronchial valves in subjects with severe homogeneous emphysema with little to no collateral ventilation beyond 3 months have yet to be established.

METHODS

Ninety-three subjects were randomized to either bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with Zephyr valves or standard of care (SoC) (1:1). Zephyr valve subjects were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. SoC subjects were assessed at 3 and 6 months; they were then offered crossover to Zephyr valve treatment.

RESULTS

The mean group difference (Zephyr valve - SoC) for change in FEV1 from baseline to 6 months was 16.3 ± 22.1% (mean ± SD; p < 0.001). Secondary outcomes showed the mean between-group difference for the six-minute walk distance of +28.3 ± 55.3 m (p = 0.016); St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, -7.51 ± 9.56 points (p < 0.001); modified Medical Research Council, -0.42 ± 0.81 points (p = 0.019); BODE index, -0.85 ± 1.39 points (p = 0.006); and residual volume of -430 ± 830 mL (p = 0.011) in favor of the Zephyr valve group. At 6 months, there were significantly more responders based on the minimal clinically important difference for these same measures in the Zephyr valve versus the SoC group. The clinical benefits were persistent at 12 months. The percentage of subjects with respiratory serious adverse events was higher in the Zephyr valve group compared to SoC during the first 30 days post-procedure but not statistically different for the Zephyr valve and SoC groups from 31 days to 6 months, and stable in the Zephyr valve group out to 12 months. There were 2 deaths in the SoC group in the 31-day to 6-month period and none in the Zephyr valve group out to 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with Zephyr valves in subjects with severe homogeneous emphysema and little to no collateral ventilation provides clinically meaningful change from baseline in lung function, quality of life, exercise capacity, dyspnea, and the BODE index at 6 months, with benefits maintained out to 12 months.

Predictive value of Chartis measurement for lung function improvements in bronchoscopic lung volume reduction

Background:

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) via valve implantation can be achieved by targeting severely hyperinflated and emphysematously destructed lung areas in patients with chronic obstructive lung disease. Lack of collateral ventilation (CV) is important for good outcomes with BLVR. CV can be measured using the catheter-based Chartis system. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between total exhaled volume drained from the target lobe measured by Chartis and clinical outcomes after BLVR in CV-negative patients.

Methods:

From January 2016 to March 2019, 60 patients were included in this retrospective single-center analysis. Drained volume (TVol) measured by Chartis was recorded and compared with lung function and physical performance parameters. Outcome variables included the percentage change in lung function [forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), residual volume (RV), and inspiratory vital capacity (IVC)]. Secondary outcomes were the degree of target lobe volume reduction (TLVR), change in 6-min walk distance (6MWD), and change in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) assessment test (CAT) score.

Results:

Drained volume correlated significantly with post-BLVR change in FEV₁ (r = 0.663), IVC (r = 0.611), RV (r = −0.368), and TLVR (r = 0.635) (all p < 0.05). In a priori-defined patient subgroups based on drained volume [<100 ml (n = 19), 100−400 ml (n = 33), and >400 ml (n = 8)]; mean changes in FEV₁ were 2.6%, 17.4%, and 51.3%; in RV were −3.9%, −10.6%, and −23.8%; in IVC were −4.0%, 10.6%, and 62.4%; and in TLVR were 525 ml (39%), 1375 ml (73%) and 1760 ml (100%), respectively. There were no significant correlations between absolute and percentage changes in 6MWD and the CAT score. Lung volume reduction was diagnosed in 32 (53%) cases.

Conclusion:

Drained volume measured by the Chartis system correlated with functional improvement in CV-negative patients undergoing BLVR.

The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Interventional therapy in patients with severe emphysema: evaluation of contraindications and their incidence

Background:

Endoscopic and surgical interventions may be beneficial for selected patients with emphysema. Rates of treatment failure decrease when the predictors for successful therapy are known. The aim of the study was to evaluate the number of patients with severe emphysema who were not eligible for any intervention, and the reasons for their exclusion.

Methods:

The study was a retrospective analysis of 231 consecutive patients with advanced emphysema who were considered for interventional therapy in 2016 at the Thoraxklinik, Heidelberg, Germany. The reasons for not receiving valve or coil therapy were assessed for all patients who did not receive any therapy.

Results:

Of the 231 patients, 50% received an interventional therapy for lung volume reduction (LVR) (82% valve therapy, 6% coil therapy, 4.3% polymeric LVR or bronchial thermal vapour ablation, 4.3% total lung denervation, and 3.4% lung volume reduction surgery [LVRS]). A total of 115 patients did not undergo LVR. Out of these, valve or coil therapy was not performed due to one or more of the following reasons: incomplete fissure in 37% and 0%; missing target lobe in 31% and 30%; personal decision in 18% and 28%; pulmonary function test results in 8% and 15%; ventilatory failure in 4% and 4%; missing optimal standard medical care and/or continued nicotine abuse in 4% and 3%; general condition too good in less than 1% and 3%; cardiovascular comorbidities in 0% and 3%; age of patient in 0% and less than 1%. Both techniques were not performed due to one or more of the following reasons: solitary pulmonary nodule(s)/consolidation in 27%; bronchopathy in 7%; neoplasia in 2%; destroyed lung in 2%; prior LVRS in less than 1%.

Conclusions:

The main reason for not placing valves was an incomplete fissure and for coils a missing target lobe. Numerous additional contraindications that may exclude a patient from interventional emphysema therapy should be respected.

A Patient with GOLD Stage 3 COPD « cured » by One-Way Endobronchial Valves

Lung hyperinflation is a main determinant of dyspnoea in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Surgical or bronchoscopic lung volume reduction are the most efficient therapeutic approaches for reducing hyperinflation in selected patients with emphysema. We here report the case of a 69-year old woman with COPD (GOLD stage 3-D) referred for lung volume reduction. She complained of persistent disabling dyspnoea despite appropriate therapy. Chest imaging showed marked emphysema heterogeneity as well as severe hyperinflation of the right lower lobe. She was deemed to be a good candidate for bronchoscopic treatment with one-way endobronchial valves. In the absence of interlobar collateral ventilation, 2 endobronchial valves were placed in the right lower lobe under general anaesthesia. The improvement observed 1 and 3 months after the procedure was such that the patient no longer met the pulmonary function criteria for COPD. The benefit persisted after 3 years.

Clinical and quantitative computed tomography predictors of response to endobronchial lung volume reduction therapy using coils

Objectives

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction using coils (LVRC) is a well-known treatment option for severe emphysema. The purpose of this study was to identify quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and clinical parameters associated with positive treatment outcome.

Patients and methods

The CT scans, pulmonary function tests (PFT), and 6-minute walk test (6-MWT) data were collected from 72 patients with advanced emphysema prior to and at 3 months after LVRC treatment. The procedure involved placing 10 coils unilaterally. Various QCT parameters were derived using Apollo imaging software (VIDA). Independent predictors of clinically relevant outcome (Δ6-MWT ≥ 26 m, ΔFEV₁ ≥ 12%, ΔRV ≥ 10%) were identified through stepwise linear regression analysis.

Results

The response outcome for Δ6-MWT, for ΔFEV₁ and for ΔRV was met by 55%, 32% and 42%, respectively. For Δ6-MWT ≥ 26 m a lower baseline 6-MWT (p = 0.0003) and a larger standard deviation (SD) of low attenuation cluster (LAC) sizes in peripheral regions of treated lung (p = 0.0037) were significantly associated with positive outcome. For ΔFEV₁ ≥ 12%, lower baseline FEV₁ (p = 0.02) and larger median LAC sizes in the central regions of treated lobe (p = 0.0018) were significant predictors of good response. For ΔRV ≥ 10% a greater baseline TLC (p = 0.0014) and a larger SD of LAC sizes in peripheral regions of treated lung (p = 0.007) tended to respond better.

Conclusion

Patients with lower FEV₁ and 6-MWT, with higher TLC and specific QCT characteristics responded more positively to LVRC treatment, suggesting a more targeted CT-based approach to patient selection could lead to greater efficacy in treatment response.

The minimal important difference for target lobe volume reduction after endoscopic valve therapy

Objective

Endoscopic valve therapy aims at target lobe volume reduction (TLVR) that is associated with improved lung function, exercise tolerance and quality of life in emphysema patients. So far, a TLVR of >350 mL was considered to be indicative of a positive response to treatment. However, it is not really known what amount of TLVR is crucial following valve implantation.

Patients and methods

TLVR, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), residual volume (RV) and 6-minute walk distance (6-MWD) were assessed before and 3 months after valve implantation in 119 patients. TLVR was calculated based on computed tomography (CT) scan analysis using imaging software (Apollo; VIDA Diagnostics). Minimal important difference estimates were calculated by anchor-based and distribution-based methods.

Results

Patients treated with valves experienced a mean change of 0.11 L in FEV₁, −0.51 L in RV, 44 m in 6-MWD and a TLVR of 945 mL. Using a linear regression and receiver operating characteristic analysis based on two of three anchors (ΔFEV₁, ΔRV), the estimated minimal important difference for TLVR was between 890 and 1,070 mL (ie, 49%–54% of the baseline TLV).

Conclusion

In future, a TLVR between 49% and 54% of the baseline TLV, should be used when interpreting the clinical relevance.

Endobronchial Valve Therapy in Patients with Homogeneous Emphysema. Results from the IMPACT Study

RATIONALE

Endobronchial valves (EBVs) have been successfully used in patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema to improve lung physiology. Limited available data suggest that EBVs are also effective in homogeneous emphysema.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of EBVs in patients with homogeneous emphysema with absence of collateral ventilation assessed with the Chartis system.

METHODS

Prospective, multicenter, 1:1 randomized controlled trial of EBV plus standard of care (SoC) or SoC alone. Primary outcome was the percentage change in FEV₁ (liters) at 3 months relative to baseline in the EBV group versus the SoC group. Secondary outcomes included changes in FEV₁, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), 6-minute-walk distance (6MWD), and target lobe volume reduction.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-three subjects (age, 63.7 ± 6.1 yr [mean ± SD]; FEV₁, % predicted, 29.3 ± 6.5; residual volume, % predicted, 275.4 ± 59.4) were allocated to either the EBV group (n = 43) or the SoC group (n = 50). In the intention-to-treat population, at 3 months postprocedure, improvement in FEV₁ from baseline was 13.7 ± 28.2% in the EBV group and -3.2 ± 13.0% in the SoC group (mean between-group difference, 17.0%; P = 0.0002). Other variables demonstrated statistically and clinically significant changes from baseline to 3 months (EBV vs. SoC, respectively: SGRQ, -8.63 ± 11.25 vs. 1.01 ± 9.36; and 6MWD, 22.63 ± 66.63 m vs. -17.34 ± 52.8 m). Target lobe volume reduction at 3 months was -1,195 ± 683 ml (P < 0.0001). Of the EBV subjects, 97.2% achieved volume reduction in the target lobe (P < 0.0001). Procedure-related pneumothoraces occurred in 11 subjects (25.6%). Five subjects required removal/replacement of one or more valves. One subject experienced two valve migration events requiring removal/replacement of valves.

CONCLUSIONS

EBV in patients with homogeneous emphysema without collateral ventilation results in clinically meaningful benefits of improved lung function, exercise tolerance, and quality of life.

Clinical and radiological outcome following pneumothorax after endoscopic lung volume reduction with valves

INTRODUCTION

Valve implantation has evolved as a therapy for patients with advanced emphysema. Although it is a minimally invasive treatment, it is associated with complications, the most common being pneumothorax. Pneumothorax occurs due to the rapid target lobe volume reduction and may be a predictor of clinical benefit despite this complication.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct an exploratory data analysis of patients who developed a pneumothorax following endoscopic valve therapy for emphysema.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study performed a retrospective evaluation of pneumothorax management and the impact of pneumothorax on clinical outcomes in 70 patients following valve therapy in 381 consecutive patients.

RESULTS

Pneumothorax rate following valve therapy was 18%. Pneumothorax management consisted of chest tube insertion, valve removal, and surgical intervention in 87% (61/70), 44% (31/70), and 19% (13/70) of the patients, respectively. Despite pneumothorax, patients experienced modest but significant improvements in lung function parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 second: 55±148 mL, residual volume: -390±964 mL, total lung capacity: -348±876; all P<0.05). Persistent lobar atelectasis 3 months after recovering from pneumothorax, which was associated with relevant clinical improvement, was observed in only 21% (15/70) of the patients.

CONCLUSION

Pneumothorax is a frequent severe complication following valve therapy that requires further intervention. Nevertheless, the pneumothorax does not impair the clinical status in the majority of patients. Patients with lobar atelectasis benefit after recovering from pneumothorax in terms of lung function parameters.