One-Year Follow-Up after Endobronchial Valve Treatment in Patients with Emphysema without Collateral Ventilation Treated in the STELVIO Trial

First in Human Phase 1 Clinical Trial of Stereotactic Irradiation to Achieve Lung Volume Reduction (SILVR) in Severe Emphysema

PURPOSE

Only a subset of patients with severe emphysema qualify for lung volume reduction surgery or endobronchial valves. We previously demonstrated that stereotactic ablative radiation therapy of lung tumors reduces lung volume in treated lobes by creating localized lung fibrosis. We aimed to determine the safety and secondarily explore the efficacy of stereotactic irradiation for lung volume reduction (SILVR) over 18 months after intervention in patients with severe emphysema.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a single-arm, prospective clinical trial in eligible patients with severe emphysema treated with unilateral stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (45 Gy in 3 fractions) to a target within the most emphysematous region. The primary outcome was safety in terms of incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events, and the secondary outcome was efficacy.

RESULTS

Eight patients received the intervention. Median (range) baseline characteristics were age 73 years (63-78); forced expiratory volume in 1 second percent of predicted value (FEV1%) 28.5% (19.0-42.0); diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide percent of predicted value 40% (24.0-67.0); and body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity (BODE) index 5.5 (5-9). The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was 3 of 8 (37.5%). The relative change in target lobe volume was -23.1% (-1.6 to -41.5) and -26.5% (-20.6 to -40.8) at 6 and 18 months, respectively. The absolute ΔFEV1% was greater in patients with a BODE index ≤5 versus ≥6 (+12.0% vs -2.0%). The mean baseline lung density (in Hounsfield units, reflecting the amount of preserved parenchyma) within the intermediate dose volume (V60BED3) correlated with the absolute change in target lobe volume at 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

SILVR appears to be safe, with a signal for efficacy as a novel therapeutic alternative for patients with severe emphysema. SILVR may be most safe and effective in patients with a lower BODE index and/or less parenchymal destruction.

Sustained Clinical Benefits of Spiration Valve System in Patients with Severe Emphysema: 24-Month Follow-Up of EMPROVE

Rationale: Follow-up of patients with emphysema treated with endobronchial valves is limited to 3-12 months after treatment in prior reports. To date, no comparative data exist between treatment and control subjects with a longer follow-up. Objectives: To assess the durability of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) in patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema over a 24-month period. Methods: EMPROVE, a multicenter randomized controlled trial, presents a rigorous comparison between treatment and control groups for up to 24 months. Lung function, respiratory symptoms, and quality-of-life (QOL) measures were assessed. Results: A significant improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second was maintained at 24 months in the SVS treatment group versus the control group. Similarly, significant improvements were maintained in several QOL measures, including the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire and the COPD Assessment Test. Patients in the SVS treatment group experienced significantly less dyspnea than those in the control group, as indicated by the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score. Adverse events at 24 months did not significantly differ between the SVS treatment and control groups. Acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation rates in the SVS treatment and control groups were 13.7% (14 of 102) and 15.6% (7 of 45), respectively. Pneumothorax rates in the SVS treatment and control groups were 1.0% (1 of 102) and 0.0% (0 of 45), respectively. Conclusions: SVS treatment resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful durable improvements in lung function, respiratory symptoms, and QOL, as well as a statistically significant reduction in dyspnea, for at least 24 months while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01812447).

Surgical and bronchoscopic pulmonary function-improving procedures in lung emphysema

COPD is a highly prevalent, chronic and irreversible obstructive airway disease without curative treatment. Standard therapeutic strategies, both non-pharmacological and pharmacological, have only limited effects on lung function parameters of patients with severe disease. Despite optimal pharmacological treatment, many patients with severe COPD still have a high burden of dyspnoea and a poor quality of life. If these patients have severe lung emphysema, with hyperinflation as the driver of symptoms and exercise intolerance, lung volume reduction may be an effective treatment with a significant impact on lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life. Currently, different lung volume reduction approaches, both surgical and bronchoscopic, have shown encouraging results and have been implemented in COPD treatment recommendations. Nevertheless, choosing the optimal lung volume reduction strategy for an individual patient remains challenging. Moreover, there is still room for improving durability of effect and safety in all available procedures. Ongoing and innovative research is essential to push this field forwards. This review provides an overview of results and limitations of the current lung volume reduction options for patients with severe lung emphysema and hyperinflation.

Assessment of efficacy and safety of endoscopic lung volume reduction with one-way valves in patients with a very low FEV1

Introduction

Endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) with one-way valves produces beneficial outcomes in patients with severe emphysema. Evidence on the efficacy remains unclear in patients with a very low forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (≤20% predicted). We aim to compare clinical outcomes of ELVR, in relation to the FEV1 restriction.

Methods

All data originated from the German Lung Emphysema Registry (Lungenemphysem Register), which is a prospective multicentric observational study for patients with severe emphysema after lung volume reduction. Two groups were formed at baseline: FEV1 ≤20% pred and FEV1 21-45% pred. Pulmonary function tests (FEV1, residual volume, partial pressure of carbon dioxide), training capacity (6-min walk distance (6MWD)), quality of life (modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale (mMRC), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)) and adverse events were assessed and compared at baseline and after 3 and 6 months.

Results

33 patients with FEV1 ≤20% pred and 265 patients with FEV1 21-45% pred were analysed. After ELVR, an increase in FEV1 was observed in both groups (both p<0.001). The mMRC and CAT scores, and 6MWD improved in both groups (all p<0.05). The SGRQ score improved significantly in the FEV1 21-45% pred group, and by trend in the FEV1 ≤20% pred group. Pneumothorax was the most frequent complication within the first 90 days in both groups (FEV1 ≤20% pred: 7.7% versus FEV1 21-45% pred: 22.1%; p=0.624). No deaths occurred in the FEV1 ≤20% pred group up to 6 months.

Conclusion

Our study highlights the potential efficacy of one-way valves, even in patients with very low FEV1, as these patients experienced significant improvements in FEV1, 6MWD and quality of life. No death was reported, suggesting a good safety profile, even in these high-risk patients.

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.

Which Endoscopic Procedure to Use and in What Patient? Valves, Coils, Foam, and Heat in COPD and Asthma

Despite the latest developments in therapeutic agents targeting airway endotypes, a significant proportion of patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remain symptomatic. Endoscopic therapies have a complementary role in the management of these airway diseases. The sustained efficacy of bronchial thermoplasty (BT) among patients with asthma over 10 years has been encouraging, as it has been shown to improve symptom control and reduce hospital admissions and exacerbations. Studies suggest that BT helps ameliorate airway inflammation and reduce airway smooth muscle thickness. While studies suggest that it is as effective as biologic agents, its role in the management of severe asthma has yet to be clearly defined and GINA 2022 still suggests limiting its use to patients with characteristics of the various populations studied. Conversely, bronchoscopic lung volume reduction has shown promise among patients with advanced COPD. Rigorous patient selection is important. Patients with minimal collateral ventilation (CV) and higher heterogeneity index have shown to benefit the most from endobronchial valve (EBV) therapy. For those with ongoing CV, endobronchial coils would be more appropriate. Both therapeutic modalities have demonstrated improved quality of life, effort tolerance, and lung function indices among appropriately selected patients. The emerging evidence suggests that endoscopic procedures among airway disease still have a substantial role to play despite the development of new therapeutic options.

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) Lobar Pneumonia Following Bronchoscopic Lung-Volume Reduction (BLVR): A Case Report and Review of Literature

With the advent of bronchoscopic lung-volume reduction (BLVR), this minimally invasive technique represents a new and effective way of managing the debilitating symptoms associated with severe centrilobular emphysema. Despite its vast potential in the management of this disease, there are still several potential risk factors associated with the procedure that may predispose the patient to increased morbidity. Our patient received four endobronchial valves in the right-upper lobe (RUL) and right-middle lobe (RML). Although her immediate post-procedure course was uncomplicated, she returned shortly after discharge with a right-sided pneumothorax and right-lower lobar pneumonia with sputum culture growing methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus). She was managed with tube thoracostomy and two weeks of cefazolin with clinical improvement. Despite the abundance of literature detailing the risk of pneumonia following BLVR, very little data exists discussing common causative organisms, choice of treatment, duration of treatment, and potential risk factors that may predispose these patients to infection. 

Crosslink bio-adhesives for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction: current status and future direction

Several bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) treatments have been developed to reduce hyperinflation in emphysema patients. Lung bio-adhesives are among the most promising new BLVR treatment options, as they potentially provide a permanent solution for emphysematous patients after only a single application. To date, bio-adhesives have mainly been used as haemostats and tissue sealants, while their application in permanently contracting and sealing hyperinflated lung tissue has recently been identified as a novel and enticing opportunity. However, a major drawback of the current adhesive technology is the induction of severe inflammatory responses and adverse events upon administration. In our review, we distinguish between and discuss various natural, semi-synthetic and synthetic tissue haemostats and sealants that have been used for pulmonary applications such as sealing air/fluid leaks. Furthermore, we present an overview of the different materials including AeriSeal and autologous blood that have been used to achieve lung volume reduction and discuss their respective advantages and drawbacks. In conclusion, we describe the key biological (therapeutic benefit and biocompatibility) and biomechanical (degradability, adhesive strength, stiffness, viscoelasticity, tunability and self-healing capacity) characteristics that are essential for an ideal lung bio-adhesive material with the potential to overcome the concerns related to current adhesives.

Implementation of Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction Using One-Way Endobronchial Valves: A Retrospective Single-Centre Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) using 1-way endobronchial valves (EBV) has become a guideline treatment in patients with advanced emphysema. Evidence from this minimally invasive treatment derives mainly from well-designed controlled trials conducted in high-volume specialized intervention centres. Little is known about real-life outcome data in hospitals setting up this novel treatment and which favourable conditions are required for a continuous successful program.

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we aim to evaluate the eligibility rate for BLVR and whether the implementation of BLVR in our academic hospital is feasible and yields clinically significant outcomes.

METHOD

A retrospective evaluation of patients treated with EBV between January 2016 and August 2019 was conducted. COPD assessment test (CAT), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), residual volume (RV), and 6-min walking test (6MWT) were measured at baseline and 3 months after intervention. Paired sample t tests were performed to compare means before and after intervention.

RESULTS

Of 350 subjects screened, 283 (81%) were not suitable for intervention mostly due to lack of a target lobe. The remaining 67 subjects (19%) underwent bronchoscopic assessment, and if suitable, valves were placed in the same session. In total, 55 subjects (16%) were treated with EBV of which 10 did not have complete follow-up: 6 subjects had their valves removed because of severe pneumothorax (n = 2) or lack of benefit (n = 4) and the remaining 4 had missing follow-up data. Finally, 45 patients had complete follow-up at 3 months and showed an average change ± SD in CAT -4 ± 6 points, FEV1 +190 ± 140 mL, RV -770 ± 790 mL, and +37 ± 65 m on the 6MWT (all p < 0.001). After 1-year follow-up, 34 (76%) subjects had their EBV in situ.

CONCLUSION

Implementing BLVR with EBV is feasible and effective. Only 16% of screened patients were eligible, indicating that this intervention is only applicable in a small subset of highly selected subjects with advanced emphysema, and therefore a high volume of COPD patients is essential for a sustainable BLVR program.

Impact of Ventilation Modes on Bronchoscopic Chartis Assessment Outcome in Candidates for Endobronchial Valve Treatment

BACKGROUND

Endobronchial valve therapy has proven to reduce lung hyperinflation and decrease disease burden in patients with severe lung emphysema. Exclusion of collateral ventilation (CV) of the targeted lobe by using an endobronchial assessment system (Chartis; PulmonX, Drive Redwood City, CA, USA) in combination with software-based fissure integrity analysis (FCS [fissure completeness score]) of computed tomography scans of the lung are established tools to select appropriate patients for endobronchial valve treatment. So far, there is no conclusive evidence if the ventilation mode during bronchoscopy impacts the outcome of Chartis assessments.

METHODS

Patients with Chartis assessments and software-based quantification of FCS (StratX; PulmonX, Drive Redwood City, CA, USA) were enrolled in this retrospective study. During bronchoscopy, pulmonary fissure integrity was evaluated with the Chartis assessment system in each patient first under spontaneous breathing and subsequently under high-frequency (HF) jet ventilation.

RESULTS

In total, 102 patients were analyzed. Four Chartis phenotypes CV positive (CV+), CV negative (CV-), low flow, and low plateau in spontaneous breathing and HF jet ventilation were identified. The frequency of each Chartis phenotype per lobe was similar in both settings. When comparing Chartis assessments in spontaneous breathing and HF jet ventilation, there was an overall good concordance rate for all analyzed fissures. In agreement, receiver operating characteristic analysis of the FCS showed an almost similar prediction for CV+ and CV- status independent of the ventilation modes.

CONCLUSION

Chartis assessment in spontaneous breathing and HF jet ventilation had similar rates in detecting CV in lung emphysema. Our results suggest that both modes are equivalent for the assessment of CV.

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.

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.

Economic Considerations of Lung Volume Reduction Surgery and Bronchoscopic Valves

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a challenging disease to treat, and at advanced stages of the disease, procedural interventions become some of the only effective methods for improving quality of life. However, these procedures are often very costly. This article reviews the medical literature on cost-effectiveness of lung volume reduction surgery and bronchoscopic valve placement for lung volume reduction. It discusses the anticipated costs and economic impact in the future as technique is perfected and outcomes are improved.

Two-Stage Bronchoscopic Endobronchial Valve Treatment Can Lead to Progressive Lung Volume Reduction and May Decrease Pneumothorax Risk

Background

Since successful development of endobronchial valves (EBV) as treatment for severe emphysema, its main complication, pneumothorax, remains an important concern.

Objective

We hypothesized that a two-step EBV implantation, during two distinct iterative procedures could lead to a more progressive target lobe volume reduction (TLVR) and thus ipsilateral lobe re-expansion, resulting in a significant decrease in the pneumothorax rate.

Methods

This retrospective bi-center study carried out by Limoges and Toulouse University Hospitals included patients following the inclusion criteria established by the BLVR expert panel. All patients were treated by two distinct procedures: first, EBVs were placed in all but the most proximal segment or sub-segment. The remaining segment was treated subsequently. All patients had a complete evaluation before treatment, and 3 months after the second procedure.

Results

Out of 58 patients included, only 4 pneumothoraxes (7%) occurred during the study. The other complications were pneumonia and severe COPD exacerbation (8.6% and 13.7% of patients, respectively). Significant improvement was found for FEV1 (+19.6 ± 25%), RV (-468 ± 960mL), 6MWD (30 ± 85m), BODE Index (-1.4 ± 1.8 point) and TLVR (50.6 ± 35.1%). Significant TLVR (MCID) was obtained in 74.1% of patients (43/58).

Conclusion

This new approach using EBV could reduce the incidence of pneumothorax without increasing other complication rates. Clinical and physiological outcomes are similar to those reported in studies using the conventional single-step treatment.

Revision Bronchoscopy After Endobronchial Valve Treatment for Emphysema: Indications, Findings and Outcomes

Background

Endobronchial valve (EBV) treatment is an effective treatment for patients with severe emphysema. Revision bronchoscopies after endobronchial valve treatment can be essential to prolong the effect of treatment or address long-term complications.

Purpose

To evaluate the indications, endoscopic findings and outcomes of revision bronchoscopies and investigate if any predictors for granulation tissue formation, after EBV treatment, can be identified.

Patients and Methods

Patients who underwent EBV treatment between 2016 and 2019 in our hospital, as routine care, were included. If a patient underwent a revision bronchoscopy, data regarding revision bronchoscopies, including indication, finding, intervention and pulmonary function testing (PFT) after revision bronchoscopy were analysed.

Results

One hundred seventy-nine patients were included of which 41% required at least one revision bronchoscopy. In 43% of the revision bronchoscopy patients, the indication was loss of initial treatment effect. In 53% of the revision bronchoscopy patients, granulation tissue was found to be the underlying cause. Valve replacement(s) were performed in 51% of the revision bronchoscopy cases. Permanent valve removal was required in 13% of all patients. Overall, revision bronchoscopies led to improvements in PFT outcomes for patients experiencing no or a loss of initial treatment effect. No clinically relevant predictors for granulation tissue formation were identified.

Conclusion

Performing a revision bronchoscopy after EBV treatment is a useful procedure leading to an improved treatment effect in most patients. Granulation tissue formation, causing valve dysfunction, is the most common cause of longer term problems.

Quasilobar minimalist lung volume reduction surgery

 

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to assess the results and the costs of the quasilobar minimalist (QLM) thoracoscopic lung volume reduction (LVR) surgical method developed to minimize the trauma from the operation and the anaesthesia and to maximize the effect of the lobar volume reduction.

METHODS

Forty patients with severe emphysema underwent QLM-LVR that entailed adoption of sole intercostal block analgesia and lobar plication through a single thoracoscopic incision. Results were compared after propensity matching with 2 control groups undergoing non-awake resectional LVR with double-lumen tracheal intubation or awake non-resectional LVR by plication with thoracic epidural anaesthesia. As a result, we had 3 matched groups of 30 patients each.

RESULTS

Baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 s, residual volume, the 6-min walking test and the modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea index were 0.77 ± 0.18, 4.97 ± 0.6, 328 ± 65 and 3.3 ± 0.7, respectively, with no intergroup difference after propensity score matching. The visual pain score was better (P < 0.007), the hospital stay was shorter (P < 0.04) and overall costs were lower (P < 0.04) in the QLM-LVR group than in the control groups. The morbidity rate was lower with QLM-LVR than with non-awake resectional-LVR (P = 0.006). Significant improvements (P < 0.001) occurred in all study groups during the follow-up period. At 24 months, improvements in residual volume and dyspnoea index were significantly better with QLM-LVR (P < 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

QLM-LVR proved safe and showed better perioperative outcomes and lower procedure-related costs than the control groups. Similar clinical benefit occurred at 12 months, but absolute improvements in residual volume and dyspnoea index were better in the QLM-LVR group at 24 months.

Bronchoscopic management of asthma, COPD and emphysema

In recent years, many bronchoscopic techniques have been developed in chronic obstructive airway inflammatory diseases, including asthma, COPD and emphysema. The main techniques with available data from randomised controlled trials are: 1) bronchial thermoplasty in asthma; 2) valves, coils and thermal vapor ablation in emphysema; and 3) targeted lung denervation in COPD. The objectives of this article are to describe the levels of evidence for efficacy and safety, long-term follow-up results beyond 1 year, and current recommendations for clinical practice from international guidelines for each technique.

Endobronchial valve vs coil for lung volume reduction in emphysema: results from a tertiary care centre in Turkey

BACKGROUND

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) by either the endobronchial valve (EBV) or coil (EBC) procedure is recommended for severe emphysematous patients. BLVR applications generally help healthy lung areas ventilate more comfortably by reducing the hyperinflation and improving the contraction capacity of diaphragm.

OBJECTIVES

Compare our experience with valve and coil BLVR devices.

DESIGN

Retrospective.

SETTING

Single tertiary care centre.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Demographic data, vital signs, pulmonary function tests (PFTs), the six-minute walking test (6MWT), vital signs, arterial blood gases and complications were recorded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Change in PFTs and completion of the 6MWT.

SAMPLE SIZE

60 Turkish men with a diagnosis of chronic pulmonary lung disease.

RESULTS

Clinical and demographic characteristics were similar in patients who underwent EBV and EBC. Thirty (96.8%) EBV patients and 27 (93.1%) of the EBC patients were able to properly complete the PFT before the procedures, but all complied after the procedures. Significant improvement in PFTs were achieved after the procedure and there were no statistically significant differences in post-procedure performance. For the 6MWT, the completion rate improved from 15 (48.4%) to 19 (61.3%) patients in the EBV patients (P=.125) and from 19 (65.5%) to 21 (72.4%) patients in the EBC patients (P=.500). There was no significant difference in completion rates for the walking test for either group (median 32 meters in EBV patients and 37 meters in EBC patients; P=.652). Vital signs and arterial blood gases were similar in the two groups. The rates of complications were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Endobronchial valves and coils are safe and effective methods for BLVR for patients with severe emphysema.

LIMITATIONS

Relatively small sample, retrospective design, single-centre retrospective study.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction: status quo

Emphysema is associated with irreversible loss of lung compliance leading to gas trapping and hyperinflation. Surgical lung volume reduction has proven to improve lung function, exercise capacity, cardiac health and survival in patients with advanced emphysema; however, this procedure is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) has emerged as an alternative approach for these patients. In this article, we review the different techniques used for the purpose of this procedure, its advantages and disadvantages. In addition, we discuss in length valve therapy and the studies that led to its recent FDA approval. Finally, we provide thought-provoking challenges that may be topics for further future investigation to enhance the efficacy and benefit of this technique.

Endobronchial valve therapy for severe emphysema: an overview of valve-related complications and its management

INTRODUCTION

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction treatment with one-way valves is an effective guideline treatment option for patients with severe emphysema. However, important challenges and adverse reactions may occur after treatment.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes the complications after endobronchial and intrabronchial valve treatment that have been described by the currently published randomized controlled trials and other relevant papers regarding the complications and its management. In case there was no relevant literature regarding these subjects, recommendations are based on expert opinion. Complications include pneumothorax, post-obstruction pneumonia and hemoptysis. Also, the treatment may not be effective due to the presence of collateral ventilation or misplaced valves. Furthermore, an initial beneficial effect may vanish due to granulation tissue formation, valve dysfunction or valve migration. Careful follow-up after treatment with valves is important. Evaluation with a CT-scan and/or bronchoscopy is needed if there is no improvement after treatment, loss of benefit, or occurrence of important adverse events during follow-up.

EXPERT OPINION

Treating severe emphysema patients with one-way valves requires continuous dedication and expertise, especially to achieve an optimal outcome and elegantly deal with the various complications after treatment.

An Integrative Approach of the Fissure Completeness Score and Chartis Assessment in Endobronchial Valve Treatment for Emphysema

Purpose

Lung volume reduction using one-way endobronchial valves is a bronchoscopic treatment for patients with severe emphysema without collateral ventilation between the treatment target lobe and the ipsilateral lobe(s). CT-scan fissure analysis is often used as a surrogate to predict the absence of collateral ventilation. We aimed to evaluate the predictive value of the fissure completeness score (FCS) compared to the functional Chartis measurement of collateral ventilation and to provide cut-off values of the FCS in patient selection.

Patients and Methods

Multicenter study in patients eligible for treatment with one-way valves. The FCS was calculated by quantitative CT analysis (Thirona, the Netherlands) and compared to status of interlobar collateral ventilation measured with Chartis system (PulmonX, USA). Thresholds were calculated for the predictive values of the presence of collateral ventilation.

Results

An FCS >95% of the left major fissure had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 91%, with 1 in 11 fissures demonstrating collateral ventilation with Chartis measurement, whereas an FCS of ≤80% had a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% for the presence of collateral ventilation. For the right major fissure, the NPV was 100% for an FCS ≤90%, but 69.7% for the right upper lobe fissure.

Conclusion

Quantitative CT analysis is recommended in all patients evaluated for endobronchial valves. Patients with incomplete fissures (left major fissure: FCS <80%; right major fissure: <90%) can be excluded from Chartis measurement and endobronchial valve treatment. In patients with more complete fissures, the FCS is not specific enough for endobronchial valve treatment decisions. In this case, additional Chartis measurements are always recommended in the right lung. For the left lung, Chartis assessments may be omitted if the FCS is >95%.

Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Study of the PneumRx Endobronchial Coil System versus Standard-of-Care Medical Management in the Treatment of Subjects with Severe Emphysema (ELEVATE)

BACKGROUND

The PneumRx endobronchial coil system for patients with severe emphysema has been shown to improve quality of life, exercise capacity, and pulmonary function in patients with emphysema. A post hoc analysis of the RENEW trial has identified patient characteristics and lobar selection methods associated with improved outcomes, which have to be confirmed prospectively.

METHODS

The ELEVATE trial is a prospective, multicenter, open label, randomized (2:1), controlled trial comparing outcomes in patients treated with endobronchial coils (treatment) to a medically managed control group (control). The trial aims to enroll 210 patients (140 in the treatment group and 70 in the control group) with severe emphysema. Control patients will be eligible to crossover to coil treatment after 6 months of follow-up. The co-primary effectiveness endpoints are percent change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s and quality of life measured by change in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire from baseline to 6 months. Secondary objectives are determination of responder rates of clinical endpoints and mean change in other functional and physiologic endpoints. All patients will be followed for 24 months after initial treatment. Adverse events will be collected on an ongoing basis throughout the trial.

DISCUSSION

The primary objective of the ELEVATE trial is to prospectively confirm the safety and effectiveness profile of the coil system for the treatment of severe emphysema in consideration of the findings of previous randomized controlled trials. Secondary objectives are the determination of responder rates in all clinical endpoints and mean change in physiologic endpoints.

Endobronchial valves for severe emphysema

The results of the randomised controlled trials investigating the bronchoscopic lung volume reduction treatment using endobronchial valves (EBV) are promising, and have led to their inclusion in treatment guidelines, US Food and Drug Administration approval and inclusion in routine care in an increasing number of countries. The one-way valve treatment has advanced and is now a regular treatment option. However, this new phase will lead to new challenges in terms of implementation. We believe that key issues in future research concern advanced patient selection, improved methods for target lobe selection, increased knowledge on the predictive risk of a pneumothorax, positioning of pulmonary rehabilitation in conjunction with the EBV treatment, the positioning of lung volume reduction surgery versus EBV treatment, and the long-term efficacy, adverse events, impact on exacerbations and hospitalisations, costs and survival. Hopefully, the increasing number of patients treated, the setup of (inter)national registries and future research efforts will further optimise all aspects of this treatment.

Long-term follow up after endoscopic valve therapy in patients with severe emphysema

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic valve therapy is a treatment modality in patients with advanced emphysema and absent interlobar collateral ventilation (CV). So far, long-term outcome following valve implantation has been insufficiently evaluated. The aim of this study was to investigate the real-world efficacy of this interventional therapy over 3 years.

METHODS

From 2006 to 2013, 256 patients with severe emphysema in whom absent CV was confirmed underwent valve therapy. The 3-year effectiveness was evaluated by pulmonary function testing (VC, FEV1, RV, TLC), 6-minute-walk test (6-MWT) and dyspnea questionnaire (mMRC). Long-term outcome was also assessed according to the radiological outcome following valve placement.

RESULTS

Of 256 patients treated with valves, 220, 200, 187, 100 and 66 patients completed the 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, 2-year and 3-year follow-up (FU) visit, respectively. All lung function parameters, 6-MWT and mMRC were significantly improved at 3- and 6-month FU. At 1-year FU, patients still experienced a significant improvement of all outcome parameters expect VC (L) and TLC (%). At 2 years, RV (L and %) and TLC (L and %) remained significantly improved compared to baseline. Three years after valve therapy, sustained significant improvement in mMRC was observed and the proportion of patients achieving a minimal clinically important difference from baseline in RV and 6-MWT was still 71% and 46%, respectively. Overall, patients with complete lobar atelectasis exhibited superior treatment outcome with 3-year responder rates to FEV1, RV and 6-MWT of 10%, 79% and 53%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated by valves experienced clinical improvement over 1 year following valve therapy. Afterwards, clinical benefit gradually declines more likely due to COPD progression.

The REACH Trial: A Randomized Controlled Trial Assessing the Safety and Effectiveness of the Spiration® Valve System in the Treatment of Severe Emphysema

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has become a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in China, with tobacco smoke, air pollution, and occupational biohazards being the major risk factors.

OBJECTIVES

The REACH trial is a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial undertaken in China to assess the safety and effectiveness of the Spiration® Valve System (SVS) compared to standard medical care in COPD patients with severe emphysema.

METHODS

Patients with severe airflow obstruction, hyperinflation, and severe dyspnea with interlobar fissure integrity were evaluated for enrollment. A total of 107 subjects were randomized in a 2: 1 allocation ratio to either the treatment group (SVS valves and medical management) or the control group (medical management alone).

RESULTS

The 3-month primary endpoint showed statistically significant improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 s in the treatment group compared to the control group (0.104 ± 0.18 vs. 0.003 ± 0.15 L, p = 0.001), with the difference being durable through 6 months. Statistically significant target lobe volume reduction was achieved at 3 months (mean change 684.4 ± 686.7 mL) and through 6 months (757.0 ± 665.3 mL). Exercise function and quality of life measures improved in the treatment group, but showed a deterioration in the control group. The serious adverse event (SAE) rate was 33% in the treatment group and 24.2% in the control group. The predominance of SAEs were acute exacerbations of COPD in both groups. There was 1 death in the control group and no deaths in the treatment group.

CONCLUSION

The SVS represents a novel approach for the treatment of severe emphysema with a clinically acceptable risk-benefit profile.

Patient Preferences for Endobronchial Valve Treatment of Severe Emphysema

Background: Patients with severe emphysema have limited treatment options. Little is known about patients' willingness to accept risks for new treatments that offer meaningful benefits. Methods: We determined treatment preferences of patients with severe emphysema using a web-based discrete-choice experiment survey. Respondents answered 9 questions that offered choices between 2 hypothetical interventional treatments or continuing current medical management. Variations in 5 attributes defined the 2 interventional treatments: improvement in ability to breathe and carry out day-to-day activities, frequency of hospitalized exacerbations, treatment type, risk of pneumothorax within 30 days of procedure, and risk of death within 3 months. Respondents were recruited through the COPD Foundation's COPD Patient-Powered Research Network and had a self-reported emphysema diagnosis and 2+ score on the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale. The relative importance of the attributes and the percentage of respondents who would select different treatment options was modeled using random-parameters logit. Results: Among 294 respondents, 51% always chose an interventional treatment option, while 19% always selected continued medical management. The most important change on average was moving from continued medical management (with no improvement in breathlessness) to an interventional treatment with improvement in breathlessness. The model predicted 71% of respondents would select a treatment option similar to removable endobronchial valve implants, 6% would select lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), and 23% continued medical management. Conclusion: Patients with severe emphysema perceive that a procedure with risks and benefits similar to the Zephyr^® endobronchial valve implants is desirable over continued medical management or LVRS.

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.

Successful lung volume reduction surgery in combined pulmonary emphysema and fibrosis without body-plethysmographic hyperinflation-a case report

Surgical and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (LVR) have been demonstrated to improve lung function, dyspnea and quality of life in patients with severe pulmonary emphysema. The most important functional prerequisite for a successful LVR is hyperinflation measured by body plethysmography. A residual volume (RV) of more than 180% predicted and a RV/total lung capacity (TLC) ratio of more than 0.58 were inclusion criteria in major LVR trials. Here we report a successful LVR in a 68-year-old man with advanced, heterogeneous emphysema without plethysmographic evidence of severe hyperinflation (RV/TLC 0.45). Computed tomography (CT) revealed severe, partly bullous upper lobe emphysema and subtle fibrotic changes with volume loss of lower lobes. Since lower lobes appeared compressed by upper lobe emphysema, these target areas were removed by thoracoscopic LVR. Four months later, the patient reported major improvements of dyspnea, FEV₁ (by 1.27 L) and 6-minute walking distance (by 150 meters). LVR reduced total lung volume measured by CT-volumetry by 0.5 L and upper lobe volume by 1.85 L while lower lobe volume increased by +1.34 L. Low density volume (-950 HU) reflecting emphysema was reduced by 1.73 L. We conclude that the opposing effects of emphysema and fibrosis resulted in a barely increase in total lung volume that was only slightly reduced by LVR. Nevertheless, resection of emphysematous target areas identified by quantitative CT analysis provided major clinical and physiologic improvements related to decompression of low-compliance lower lobe areas retracted by early fibrosis. Therefore, in the combined presence of severe, heterogeneously distributed emphysema and fibrosis, LVR may improve respiratory mechanics even if RV/TLC, an established body-plethysmographic predictor of LVR success is not severely elevated.

Valve therapy in patients with emphysematous type of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): from randomized trials to patient selection in clinical practice

In recent years a number of endoscopic methods have emerged to treat patients with severe emphysematous type of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), who are primarily symptomatic due to hyperinflation despite optimal medical management. Of these techniques, implantation of endobronchial one-way valves into targeted airways of isolated emphysematous lobes appears to be one of the most promising innovations. Results from randomized controlled trials of valve therapy for emphysema show consistent benefits in terms of lung function, exercise capacity, symptoms, and quality of life. This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the currently available scientific data, discussion of typical treatment related side effects, and recommendations for patient selection in clinical practice.

Complications after bronchoscopic lung volume reduction

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) has been demonstrated an efficient and safe alternative to surgery in multiple randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies. However, despite its minimal invasiveness BLVR is not without potential harm. Complications and their incidents differ significantly between the individual BLVR techniques (valves, coils, vapour or sealant) which are bearing varying device- and intervention-dependent risks. Interventional pulmonologists must be aware of potential side effects and their management to anticipate and ensure highest quality treatment of the severely ill emphysema patient.

Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction: A 2018 Review and Update

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) procedure has expanded the treatment spectrum of patients with end-stage emphysema. These treatments include valve, coil, thermal vapor ablation, bio-lung volume reduction, targeted lung denervation, and airway bypass stent. This short review provides an up-to-date information on BLVR treatments, their clinical benefits, and an overview of complications. BLVR treatments generally affect dyspnea by reducing hyperinflation and residual volume (RV). Benefits of treatment are associated with improvement in lung function parameters (forced expiration volume in the first second, total lung capacity, RV, and 6-minute walking test) and quality of life. Serious potential pulmonary complications, such as pneumothorax, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation, may also occur after BLVR treatment. In addition to these, low-cost BLVR methods, such as autologous blood and fibrin glue, are in the developmental stage. Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction treatments are a promising method with positive results for patients with severe emphysema. The widespread use of these techniques, inadequate selection of patients, and non-critical and, therefore, unsuccessful use of BLVR in non-specialist centers lead to a false negative impression of the effectiveness of these techniques. In addition to these considerations, it is obvious that these treatments, which are quite expensive, are burdening social health systems. The reduction of costs or the development of lower-cost treatment methods is important for the future and for the availability of treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of endobronchial valve treatment in patients with severe emphysema compared to standard medical care

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction using endobronchial valves (EBV) is an effective new treatment option for severe emphysema patients without interlobar collateral ventilation. The objective of this study was to perform an economic evaluation including the costs and cost-effectiveness of EBV treatment compared with standard medical care (SoC) from the hospital perspective in the short term and long term.

METHODS

For the short-term evaluation, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated based on the 6-month end point data from the STELVIO randomized trial. For the long-term evaluation, a Markov simulation model was constructed based on STELVIO and literature. The clinical outcome data were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) based on the EuroQol5-Dimensions (EQ5D) questionnaire, the 6-min walking distance (6MWD) and the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ).

RESULTS

The mean difference between the EBV group and controls was €16 721/patient. In the short-term (6 months), costs per additional QALY was €205 129, the ICER for 6MWD was €160 and for SGRQ was €1241. In the long term, the resulting cost-effectiveness ratios indicate additional costs of €39 000 per QALY gained with a 5-year time horizon and €21 500 per QALY gained at 10 years. In comparison, historical costs per additional QALY 1 year after the coil treatment are €738 400, 5 years after lung volume reduction surgery are €48 415 and 15 years after double-lung transplantation are €29 410.

CONCLUSION

The positive clinical effects of EBV treatment are associated with increased costs compared with SoC. Our results suggest that the EBV treatment has a favourable cost-effectiveness profile, also when compared with other treatment modalities for this patient group.

[Not Available]

Zusammenfassung. Die endoskopische Lungenvolumenreduktion (ELVR) hat sich in den vergangenen Jahren in ausgewählten Patienten mit schwerem Lungenemphysem als valable Alternative zur chirurgischen Lungenvolumenreduktion etabliert. Die Wahl der ELVR-Technik richtet sich danach, ob zwischen dem zu behandelnden und dem benachbarten Lungenlappen Kollateralventilation vorhanden ist, was mittels computertomografischer und endoskopischer Techniken festgestellt werden kann. Als Vorteile der ELVR-Verfahren sind die geringe Invasivität mit entsprechend geringer Mortalität und Morbidität bei niedrigen Kosten zu nennen, zudem ist die Ventileinlage bei Bedarf reversibel. Die Wirksamkeit der ELVR-Verfahren (Ventile, Coils) wurde in mehreren prospektiven, randomisierten Studien belegt. Die Wahl des für den Patienten geeigneten Verfahrens zur Lungenvolumenreduktion sollte weiterhin in einer interdisziplinären Besprechung mit Thoraxchirurgen und spezialisierten Pneumologen erfolgen. La réduction du volume pulmonaire par endoscopie est devenue une importante alternative à la chirurgie chez les malades présentant un emphysème pulmonaire sévère. Le choix de la technique au niveau individuel dépend principalement de l’intégrité de la fissure interlobaire et de la présence d’une ventilation collatérale, cette dernière pouvant être déterminée par tomographie computérisée quantitative et des techniques endoscopiques. Les avantages de la réduction du volume pulmonaire par endoscopie consistent en son caractère minimalement invasif ( procédure utilisant un orifice naturel) et des coûts potentiellement réduits. Par ailleurs ce mode de réduction du volume pulmonaire permet de restaurer la ventilation en cas de besoin. Le choix de la technique appropriée chez un malade donné devrait être discuté de manière interdisciplinaire dans le cadre d’un groupe comportant des pneumologues interventionnels et des chirurgiens thoraciques.

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of Zephyr Endobronchial Valve Treatment in Heterogeneous Emphysema (TRANSFORM)

RATIONALE

Single-center randomized controlled trials of the Zephyr endobronchial valve (EBV) treatment have demonstrated benefit in severe heterogeneous emphysema. This is the first multicenter study evaluating this treatment approach.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Zephyr EBVs in patients with heterogeneous emphysema and absence of collateral ventilation.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter 2:1 randomized controlled trial of EBVs plus standard of care or standard of care alone (SoC). Primary outcome at 3 months post-procedure was the percentage of subjects with FEV₁ improvement from baseline of 12% or greater. Changes in FEV₁, residual volume, 6-minute-walk distance, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, and modified Medical Research Council score were assessed at 3 and 6 months, and target lobe volume reduction on chest computed tomography at 3 months.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Ninety seven subjects were randomized to EBV (n = 65) or SoC (n = 32). At 3 months, 55.4% of EBV and 6.5% of SoC subjects had an FEV₁ improvement of 12% or more (P < 0.001). Improvements were maintained at 6 months: EBV 56.3% versus SoC 3.2% (P < 0.001), with a mean ± SD change in FEV₁ at 6 months of 20.7 ± 29.6% and -8.6 ± 13.0%, respectively. A total of 89.8% of EBV subjects had target lobe volume reduction greater than or equal to 350 ml, mean 1.09 ± 0.62 L (P < 0.001). Between-group differences for changes at 6 months were statistically and clinically significant: ΔEBV-SoC for residual volume, -700 ml; 6-minute-walk distance, +78.7 m; St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, -6.5 points; modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score, -0.6 points; and BODE (body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity) index, -1.8 points (all P < 0.05). Pneumothorax was the most common adverse event, occurring in 19 of 65 (29.2%) of EBV subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

EBV treatment in hyperinflated patients with heterogeneous emphysema without collateral ventilation resulted in clinically meaningful benefits in lung function, dyspnea, exercise tolerance, and quality of life, with an acceptable safety profile. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02022683).

Recipient selection process and listing for lung transplantation

Lung transplantation remains the ultimate treatment option for selected patients with end-stage (cardio) pulmonary disease. Given the current organ shortage, it is without any doubt that careful selection of potential transplant candidates is essential as this may greatly influence survival after the procedure. In this paper, we will review the current guidelines for referral and listing of lung transplant candidates in general, and in more depth for the specific underlying diseases. Needless to state that these are not absolute guidelines, and that decisions depend upon center's activity, waiting list, etc. Therefore, every patient should be discussed with the transplant center before any definite decision is made to accept or decline a patient for lung transplantation.