Closure of TB pulmonary cavern using endobronchial valve placement

INTRODUCTION

Enhancing the efficacy of treatment for Multi-Drug Resistant (MDR) and Extensively Drug Resistant (XDR) Tuberculosis has prompted exploration into adjunctive therapies, such as Endobronchial Valve Placement (EVP) in addition to pharmacological interventions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

EVP was performed utilizing a combination of rigid and flexible bronchoscopes to address airway hemorrhage and facilitate closure of TB cavities. The procedure involved the deployment of large valves (12 mm and 17 mm), necessitating the utilization of a rigid bronchoscope.

RESULTS

Sputum conversion was confirmed through culture analysis after one month, and chest CT scans revealed complete closure of the tuberculous cavity five months post the EVP procedure.

CONCLUSION

We posit that when used in conjunction with anti-TB chemotherapy, this method holds promise for shortening treatment duration and improving overall efficacy.

[Computed tomographic imaging in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease : What pulmonologists and thoracic surgeons want to know]

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) begins with chronic inflammation of the bronchial system and leads to the development of emphysema in many patients. COPD patients are characterized by reduced performance, dyspnea in the context of an obstructive respiratory disorder and increased susceptibility to infections. COPD has a major impact on public health, as it is very common and many patients die from it. The most important preventable cause of COPD is tobacco smoke inhalation, which is why consistent smoking cessation is the most important component of any COPD treatment. There is no causal therapy, but in severely symptomatic patients with advanced emphysema, respiratory mechanics can be improved by lung volume reduction if all conservative treatment options have been exhausted. Diagnostic imaging is of great importance in the care of COPD patients. This article summarizes which indications warrant the performance of computed tomography (CT) and what we should pay special attention to during image analysis in order to provide optimal advice to our clinical partners.

Joint Statement of the German Respiratory Society and German Society of Thoracic Surgery in Cooperation with the German Radiological Society: Structural Prerequisites of Centres for Interventional Treatment of Emphysema

Interventional treatment of emphysema offers a wide range of surgical and endoscopic options for patients with advanced disease. Multidisciplinary collaboration of pulmonology, thoracic surgery, and imaging disciplines in patient selection, therapy, and follow-up ensures treatment quality. The present joint statement describes the required structural and quality prerequisites of treatment centres. This is a translation of the German article "Positionspapier der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Pneumologie und Beatmungsmedizin und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Thoraxchirurgie in Kooperation mit der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft: Strukturvoraussetzungen von Zentren für die interventionelle Emphysemtherapie" Pneumologie. 2020;74:17-23.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - diagnosis and management of stable disease; a personalized approach to care, using the treatable traits concept based on clinical phenotypes. Position paper of the Czech Pneumological and Phthisiological Society

This position paper has been drafted by experts from the Czech national board of diseases with bronchial obstruction, of the Czech Pneumological and Phthisiological Society. The statements and recommendations are based on both the results of randomized controlled trials and data from cross-sectional and prospective real-life studies to ensure they are as close as possible to the context of daily clinical practice and the current health care system of the Czech Republic. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a preventable and treatable heterogeneous syndrome with a number of pulmonary and extrapulmonary clinical features and concomitant chronic diseases. The disease is associated with significant mortality, morbidity and reduced quality of life. The main characteristics include persistent respiratory symptoms and only partially reversible airflow obstruction developing due to an abnormal inflammatory response of the lungs to noxious particles and gases. Oxidative stress, protease-antiprotease imbalance and increased numbers of pro-inflammatory cells (mainly neutrophils) are the main drivers of primarily non-infectious inflammation in COPD. Besides smoking, household air pollution, occupational exposure, low birth weight, frequent respiratory infections during childhood and also genetic factors are important risk factors of COPD development. Progressive airflow limitation and airway remodelling leads to air trapping, static and dynamic hyperinflation, gas exchange abnormalities and decreased exercise capacity. Various features of the disease are expressed unequally in individual patients, resulting in various types of disease presentation, emerging as the "clinical phenotypes" (for specific clinical characteristics) and "treatable traits" (for treatable characteristics) concept. The estimated prevalence of COPD in Czechia is around 6.7% with 3,200-3,500 deaths reported annually. The elementary requirements for diagnosis of COPD are spirometric confirmation of post-bronchodilator airflow obstruction (post-BD FEV₁/VCmax <70%) and respiratory symptoms assessement (dyspnoea, exercise limitation, cough and/or sputum production. In order to establish definite COPD diagnosis, a five-step evaluation should be performed, including: 1/ inhalation risk assessment, 2/ symptoms evaluation, 3/ lung function tests, 4/ laboratory tests and 5/ imaging. At the same time, all alternative diagnoses should be excluded. For disease classification, this position paper uses both GOLD stages (1 to 4), GOLD groups (A to D) and evaluation of clinical phenotype(s). Prognosis assessment should be done in each patient. For this purpose, we recommend the use of the BODE or the CADOT index. Six elementary clinical phenotypes are recognized, including chronic bronchitis, frequent exacerbator, emphysematous, asthma/COPD overlap (ACO), bronchiectases with COPD overlap (BCO) and pulmonary cachexia. In our concept, all of these clinical phenotypes are also considered independent treatable traits. For each treatable trait, specific pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies are defined in this document. The coincidence of two or more clinical phenotypes (i.e., treatable traits) may occur in a single individual, giving the opportunity of fully individualized, phenotype-specific treatment. Treatment of COPD should reflect the complexity and heterogeneity of the disease and be tailored to individual patients. Major goals of COPD treatment are symptom reduction and decreased exacerbation risk. Treatment strategy is divided into five strata: risk elimination, basic treatment, phenotype-specific treatment, treatment of respiratory failure and palliative care, and treatment of comorbidities. Risk elimination includes interventions against tobacco smoking and environmental/occupational exposures. Basic treatment is based on bronchodilator therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation, vaccination, care for appropriate nutrition, inhalation training, education and psychosocial support. Adequate phenotype-specific treatment varies phenotype by phenotype, including more than ten different pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. If more than one clinical phenotype is present, treatment strategy should follow the expression of each phenotypic label separately. In such patients, multicomponental therapeutic regimens are needed, resulting in fully individualized care. In the future, stronger measures against smoking, improvements in occupational and environmental health, early diagnosis strategies, as well as biomarker identification for patients responsive to specific treatments are warranted. New classes of treatment (inhaled PDE3/4 inhibitors, single molecule dual bronchodilators, anti-inflammatory drugs, gene editing molecules or new bronchoscopic procedures) are expected to enter the clinical practice in a very few years.

CT-Derived Pulmonary Artery Diameters to Preselect for Echocardiography in COPD Patients Eligible for Bronchoscopic Treatments

BACKGROUND

Currently, patients with COPD who are evaluated for bronchoscopic treatments are routinely screened for pulmonary hypertension (PH) and systolic left ventricle dysfunction by echocardiography.

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the prevalence of PH and systolic left ventricle dysfunction in this patient group and investigated if the previously proposed CT-derived pulmonary artery to aorta (PA:A) ratio >1 and PA diameter measurements can be used as alternative screening tools for PH.

METHODS

Two hundred fifty-five patients were included in this retrospective analysis (FEV1 25%pred, RV 237%pred). All patients received transthoracic echocardiography and chest CT scans on which diameters of the aorta and pulmonary artery were measured at the bifurcation and proximal to the bifurcation.

RESULTS

Following echocardiography, 3 patients (1.2%) had PH and 1 (0.4%) had systolic left ventricle dysfunction. Using a PA:A ratio >1, only 10.3% of the patients with a right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) ≥35 mm Hg were detected and none of the patients with an RVSP >50 mm Hg were detected. Patients with an RVSP ≥35 mm Hg had significantly higher PA diameters (29.5 vs. 27.5 mm; p = 0.02) but no significantly different PA:A ratios. All patients with an RVSP >50 mm Hg had PA diameters >30 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of PH and systolic left ventricle dysfunction is low in this preselected cohort of patients with severe COPD. In this population, a PA:A ratio >1 is not a useful cardiac screening tool for PH. A PA diameter >30 mm could substitute for routinely performed echocardiography in the screening for PH in this patient group.

Screening for Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction: Reasons for Not Receiving Interventional Treatment

BACKGROUND

Evidence for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) is based on phase 2 studies and small randomized controlled trials with in- and exclusion criteria defining a therapeutic window and contraindications. Little is known about the applicability in routine clinical practice.

AIM

Which percentage of patients with severe emphysema referred to a specialized treatment center for BLVR is ultimately suitable for interventional bronchoscopic treatment? What is the relevance of the different contraindications?

METHODS

Retrospective evaluation of emphysema patients referred to Asklepios Fachkliniken Munich-Gauting for BLVR between January 2014 and June 2015.

RESULTS

138 patients were referred for evaluation of BLVR. 38 patients (27.5%) underwent BLVR procedures (valves n = 18; coils n = 18; thermal vapor ablation n = 2). 100 patients (72.5%) were deemed not eligible for BLVR based on the following contraindications: 34% emphysema morphology and emphysema-related findings (severe homogeneous emphysema, extensive pleuropulmonary adhesions, postinflammatory scaring with natural volume reduction, giant bullae), 16% active smoking; 9% pulmonary function not within indication range; 8% unexpected CT findings (nodules, cancer, interstitial disease); 8% chronic ventilatory failure; 8% patient refused BLVR; 5% relevant comorbidity; 5% frequent exacerbations, 3% preserved quality of life, 4% other.

CONCLUSION

BLVR is a therapeutic option for highly selected patients. In our cohort, one in four could be treated. These data highlight the limitations of BLVR under real-life conditions.

Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction with Endobronchial Zephyr Valves for Severe Emphysema: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic lung volume reduction using Zephyr® valves has been recently adopted as a treatment option for patients with severe emphysema without collateral ventilation (CV).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of Zephyr valves in such a population.

METHODS

Studies were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. All searches were current until June 2018. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of Zephyr. We defined as outcome: change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), in the 6-min walking test (6MWT), in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and in residual volume (RV). Safety analysis included relative risk (RR) of pneumothorax. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

7 RCTs reported on Zephyr valves and 5 RCTs included only patients without CV. Zephyr improved FEV1 with a mean difference (MD) of 17.36% (CI, 9.28-25.45, I2 = 78%). Subgroup analysis showed significant FEV1 improvement following Zephyr placement in patients with heterogeneous distribution: MD = 21.78% (CI, 8.70-34.86, I2 = 89%) and 16.27% (CI, 8.78-23.76, I2 = 0%) in patients with homogeneous emphysema. Studies with a follow-up of 3 months reported FEV1 MD = 17.19% (CI, 3.16-31.22, I2 = 89%) compared to studies with a follow-up of 6-12 months, which showed a consistent improvement of FEV1 MD = 17.90% (CI, 11.47-24.33, I2 = 0%). Zephyr also showed improvement of SGRQ, 6MWT, and RV. RR of pneumothorax was 6.32 (CI, 3.74-10.67, I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

In this population, Zephyr valves provided significant and clinically meaningful short-term improvements in either homogeneous or heterogeneous emphysema without CV but with an increase in adverse events.

Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction

Since the publication of the National Emphysema Treatment Trial study, lung volume reduction (LVR) has been considered a therapeutic alternative for patients with advanced obstructive lung disease. The high complication rate of surgical LVR has led to the development of bronchoscopic LVR (BLVR). Of the currently available BLVR alternatives, coils and unidirectional endobronchial valves lead the list. The choice of each device depends on emphysema characteristics and presence of collateral ventilation. Evaluation of these patients at centers with expertise in interventional pulmonology and management of BLVR is strongly recommended.

Endobronchial coils in treatment of advanced emphysema: A single center experience

Background

This study aims to present our experience with endobronchial coils in patients who underwent endobronchial lung volume reduction due to advanced emphysema.

Methods

The study included 46 patients (45 males, 1 female; mean age 61.7±8 years; range, 43 to 80 years) who underwent endobronchial lung volume reduction with endobronchial coils for advanced emphysema. Patients" age, gender, pulmonary function tests, post-treatment morbidity, mortality, pre- and post-treatment (6 months) six-minute walking distance, modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scores, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores were recorded.

Results

Patients had an average of 65 pack/year smoking history. An average of 11 (range, 9-15) coils were placed per lobe (right upper lobe=35, left upper lobe=19, right lower lobe=2, left lower lobe=4). Mean follow-up duration was 12.6 months (±5.6 months). Post-treatment forced expiratory volume in one second, residual volume and six-minute walking distance values were improved with statistical significance. Also, significant improvement was seen in quality of life, quantified by modified Medical Research Council, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores. While no immediate major postoperative complications occurred, three patients developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation, two developed pneumonia, and one developed recurrence of previous neurologic disorder within 30 days.

Conclusion

Endobronchial coil administration provides lower morbidity and mortality compared to lung volume reduction surgery as well as significant improvement in pulmonary functions and quality of life in selected patients with advanced emphysema.

Endobronchial Coils for Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction: Best Practice Recommendations from an Expert Panel

Endobronchial coils are an additional treatment option for lung volume reduction in patients with severe emphysema. Patient selection should be focused on patients with severe emphysema on optimal medical therapy and with evidence of severe hyperinflation. The technique is suitable in a broad range of patients with emphysema; however, patients with paraseptal emphysema, large focal (giant) bullae, significant co-morbidity and airway-predominant disease should be avoided. Treatment involves placing between 10 and 14 coils by bronchoscopy in the selected treatment lobe, with 2 lobes being treated sequentially. Lobe selection for treatment should be based on quantitative computed tomography, and the lobes with the greatest destruction should be targeted (excluding the right middle lobe). The treatment results in an improvement in pulmonary function, exercise performance and quality of life, particularly in patients with severe hyperinflation (residual volume > 200% predicted) and upper-lobe heterogeneous emphysema, but will also be of benefit in lower-lobe predominant and homogeneous emphysema. Finally, it has an acceptable safety profile, although special attention has to be paid to coil-associated opacity which is an inflammatory response that occurs in some patients treated with endobronchial coils.

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.

Pleural Adhesion Assessment as a Predictor for Pneumothorax after Endobronchial Valve Treatment

BACKGROUND

Pneumothorax after bronchoscopic lung volume reduction using one-way endobronchial valves (EBVs) in patients with advanced emphysema occurs in approximately 20% of patients. It is not well known which factors predict the development of pneumothorax.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether pleural adhesions on pretreatment high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans are associated with pneumothorax occurrence after EBV treatment.

METHODS

HRCT scan analyses were performed on all patients who received EBV treatment in a randomized controlled trial. Three blinded readers scored adhesions by number and by measuring the longest axis of each pleural adhesion in the treated lung. The Pleural Adhesion Score (PAS) was calculated by adding 1 point for each small pleural lesion (<1 mm), 5 points for each medium-sized lesion (1-5 mm), and 10 points for each large lesion (>5 mm).

RESULTS

The HRCT scans of 64 treated patients were assessed, of whom 14 developed pneumothorax. Patients who developed pneumothorax had a higher median number of pleural adhesions, 2.7 (IQR 1.9-4) compared to 1.7 (1-2.7) adhesions in the group without pneumothorax (p < 0.01). The PAS in the group with pneumothorax was higher compared to that in the group without: 14.3 (12.4-24.1) versus 6.7 (3.7-11.2) (p < 0.01). A threshold PAS of ≥12 was associated with a higher risk of pneumothorax (OR 13.0, 95% CI 3.1-54.9). A score <12 did not rule out the occurrence of pneumothorax.

CONCLUSION

A higher number of pleural adhesions on HRCT with a subsequent higher PAS in the treated lung is associated with a higher occurrence of pneumothorax after EBV treatment.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) kills more than 3 million people worldwide every year. Despite progress in the treatment of symptoms and prevention of acute exacerbations, few advances have been made to ameliorate disease progression or affect mortality. A better understanding of the complex disease mechanisms resulting in COPD is needed. Smoking cessation programmes, increasing physical activity, and early detection and treatment of comorbidities are further key components to reduce the burden of the disease. However, without a global political and economic effort to reduce tobacco use, to regulate environmental exposure, and to find alternatives to the massive use of biomass fuel, COPD will remain a major health-care problem for decades to come.

The Safety and Feasibility of Re-treating Patients with Severe Emphysema with Endobronchial Coils: A Pilot Study

Severe emphysema patients who have been treated with endobronchial coils have been shown to initially benefit, but slowly decline in the years thereafter. Re-treating a patient with endobronchial coils could potentially lead to new improvements and may again reduce the rate of further decline. To our knowledge, until now, no results are published about patients who are re-treated. The primary aim of this study is to investigate the safety and feasibility of re-treating severe emphysema patients with endobronchial coils, using the PneumRx coil system. Furthermore, as secondary aim, we will evaluate the efficacy of re-treating these patients. Patients who at least 2 years ago were treated with endobronchial coils and responded clinically meaningful to this treatment were included in the study and re-treated. Safety was evaluated by the number of reported adverse events. Efficacy was evaluated 6 months after re-treatment, and measured by the change in quality of life, exercise capacity and pulmonary function testing. Eight patients were re-treated at a median of 1382 days (range 849-1545) after initial coil treatment with a median additional of 12 (10-15) coils per patient. During treatment, and until 6 months of follow-up, no unexpected adverse events occurred. Quality of life, exercise capacity and lung function did not change significantly 6 months after re-treatment. The results of this pilot study suggest that re-treating patients with endobronchial coils is feasible and safe. However, larger studies are needed to confirm these results and to investigate the efficacy and thus the clinical relevance.

The bronchoscopic interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease according to different phenotypes

Bronchoscopic interventions are valuable adjuncts to the pharmacologic therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). But different phenotypes of COPD patients showed different clinical responses to the same or similar therapy. The optimal selection of bronchoscopic interventions for COPD patients also needs to be based on the phenotypes. According to the different phenotypes, novel interventional pulmonology techniques which were used for COPD treatments in daily clinical practice or clinical trials have been described extensively throughout our current review.

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction procedures for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

In the recent years, a variety of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) procedures have emerged that may provide a treatment option to participants suffering from moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of BLVR on the short- and long-term health outcomes in participants with moderate to severe COPD and determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of each individual technique.

SEARCH METHODS

Studies were identified from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR) and by handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. All searches are current until 07 December 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data, if available.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. Where possible, data from more than one study were combined in a meta-analysis using RevMan 5 software.

MAIN RESULTS

AeriSealOne RCT of 95 participants found that AeriSeal compared to control led to a significant median improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) (18.9%, interquartile range (IQR) -0.7% to 41.9% versus 1.3%, IQR -8.2% to 12.9%), and higher quality of life, as measured by the St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) (-12 units, IQR -22 units to -5 units, versus -3 units, IQR -5 units to 1 units), P = 0.043 and P = 0.0072 respectively. Although there was no significant difference in mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.90, 95% CI 0.14 to 62.15), adverse events were more common for participants treated with AeriSeal (OR 3.71, 95% CI 1.34 to 10.24). The quality of evidence found in this prematurely terminated study was rated low to moderate. Airway bypass stentsTreatment with airway bypass stents compared to control did not lead to significant between-group changes in FEV₁ (0.95%, 95% CI -0.16% to 2.06%) or SGRQ scores (-2.00 units, 95% CI -5.58 units to 1.58 units), as found by one study comprising 315 participants. There was no significant difference in mortality (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.77), nor were there significant differences in adverse events (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.73) between the two groups. The quality of evidence was rated moderate to high. Endobronchial coilsThree studies comprising 461 participants showed that treatment with endobronchial coils compared to control led to a significant between-group mean difference in FEV₁ (10.88%, 95% CI 5.20% to 16.55%) and SGRQ (-9.14 units, 95% CI -11.59 units to -6.70 units). There were no significant differences in mortality (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.29), but adverse events were significantly more common for participants treated with coils (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.23). The quality of evidence ranged from low to high. Endobronchial valvesFive studies comprising 703 participants found that endobronchial valves versus control led to significant improvements in FEV₁ (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.64) and scores on the SGRQ (-7.29 units, 95% CI -11.12 units to -3.45 units). There were no significant differences in mortality between the two groups (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.43) but adverse events were more common in the endobronchial valve group (OR 5.85, 95% CI 2.16 to 15.84). Participant selection plays an important role as absence of collateral ventilation was associated with superior clinically significant improvements in health outcomes. The quality of evidence ranged from low to high. Intrabronchial valvesIn the comparison of partial bilateral placement of intrabronchial valves to control, one trial favoured control in FEV₁ (-2.11% versus 0.04%, P = 0.001) and one trial found no difference between the groups (0.9 L versus 0.87 L, P = 0.065). There were no significant differences in SGRQ scores (MD 2.64 units, 95% CI -0.28 units to 5.56 units) or mortality rates (OR 4.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 28.94), but adverse events were more frequent (OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.48 to 7.84) in participants treated with intrabronchial valves. The lack of functional benefits may be explained by the procedural strategy used, as another study (22 participants) compared unilateral versus partial bilateral placement, finding significant improvements in FEV₁ and SGRQ when using the unilateral approach. The quality of evidence ranged between moderate to high. Vapour ablationOne study of 69 participants found significant mean between-group differences in FEV₁ (14.70%, 95% CI 7.98% to 21.42%) and SGRQ (-9.70 units, 95% CI -15.62 units to -3.78 units), favouring vapour ablation over control. There was no significant between-group difference in mortality (OR 2.82, 95% CI 0.13 to 61.06), but vapour ablation led to significantly more adverse events (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.00 to 14.97). The quality of evidence ranged from low to moderate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results for selected BLVR procedures indicate they can provide significant and clinically meaningful short-term (up to one year) improvements in health outcomes, but this was at the expense of increased adverse events. The currently available evidence is not sufficient to assess the effect of BLVR procedures on mortality. These findings are limited by the lack of long-term follow-up data, limited availability of cost-effectiveness data, significant heterogeneity in results, presence of skew and high CIs, and the open-label character of a number of the studies.

Endobronchial Valves for Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction: Best Practice Recommendations from Expert Panel on Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction

Endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) is being adopted as a treatment option for carefully selected patients suffering from severe emphysema. ELVR with the one-way endobronchial Zephyr valves (EBV) has been demonstrated to improve pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with both heterogeneous and homogenous emphysema without collateral ventilation. In this "expert best practices" review, we will highlight the practical aspects of this therapy. Key selection criteria for ELVR are hyperinflation with a residual volume >175% of predicted, forced expiratory volume <50% of predicted, and a 6-min walking distance >100 m. Patients with repeated infectious complications, severe bronchiectasis, and those with unstable cardiovascular comorbidities should be excluded from EBV treatment. The procedure may be performed with either conscious sedation or general anesthesia and positive pressure mechanical ventilation using a flexible endotracheal tube or a rigid bronchoscope. Chartis and EBV placement should be performed in 1 procedure when possible. The sequence of valve placement should be orchestrated to avoid obstruction and delivery of subsequent valves. If atelectasis has not occurred by 1 month after procedure, evaluate valve position on CT and consider replacing the valves that are not optimally positioned. Pneumothorax is a common complication and typically occurs in the first 2 days following treatment. A management algorithm for pneumothorax has been previously published. Long-term sequelae from EBV therapy do occur but are easily manageable.

Lung volume reduction for emphysema

Advanced emphysema is a lung disease in which alveolar capillary units are destroyed and supporting tissue is lost. The combined effect of reduced gas exchange and changes in airway dynamics impairs expiratory airflow and leads to progressive air trapping. Pharmacological therapies have limited effects. Surgical resection of the most destroyed sections of the lung can improve pulmonary function and exercise capacity but its benefit is tempered by significant morbidity. This issue stimulated a search for novel approaches to lung volume reduction. Alternative minimally invasive approaches using bronchoscopic techniques including valves, coils, vapour thermal ablation, and sclerosant agents have been at the forefront of these developments. Insertion of endobronchial valves in selected patients could have benefits that are comparable with lung volume reduction surgery. Endobronchial coils might have a role in the treatment of patients with emphysema with severe hyperinflation and less parenchymal destruction. Use of vapour thermal energy or a sclerosant might allow focal treatment but the unpredictability of the inflammatory response limits their current use. In this Review, we aim to summarise clinical trial evidence on lung volume reduction and provide guidance on patient selection for available therapies.

A Long-Term Follow-Up Investigation of Endobronchial Valves in Emphysema (the LIVE Study): Study Protocol and Six-Month Interim Analysis Results of a Prospective Five-Year Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials indicate that significant lung volume reduction (ELVR) can be obtained with Zephyr® valves by occluding the target lobe in the absence of collateral ventilation, leading to relevant functional benefits in advanced emphysema patients.

OBJECTIVES

To observe the long-term effects of endobronchial valve (EBV) implantation in emphysema patients screened by Chartis assessment in the context of daily pulmonology practice.

METHODS

The LIVE Study is a prospective, observational, open-label, single-arm, multicenter trial conducted in Germany. 498 patients included in this interim analysis were enrolled between July 2, 2012, and September 16, 2014. The 6-month follow-up visit data were recorded for 343 patients (safety population), and complete data sets were available for 321 treated patients (efficacy population) - 56.4% male, age: 64.5 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) % predicted: 31.3%, residual volume (RV) % predicted: 252%.

RESULTS

Efficacy results at 6 months: FEV1 (l) increased by +100 ml (+11.9%), RV (l) decreased by -0.42 liter, and the COPD Assessment Test score decreased by -3.14 points (each p < 0.0001). Safety outcomes: A total of 66 adverse events (AEs; with 50 serious AEs - SAEs) were reported in 55 patients (16%) during the hospital stay for EBV placement - pneumothorax (35 cases), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation (5 cases), and pneumonia (4 cases). During the subsequent 6-month follow-up window, 170 SAEs were recorded in 125 patients (36.4%), predominantly COPD exacerbation (53% of the SAEs).

CONCLUSION

The current results of this large-scale German observational study performed in the context of daily practice further demonstrates that ELVR with Zephyr® valves is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option in advanced emphysema.