Endoscopic volume reduction in COPD- a critical review

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.

Impacts of Coil Treatment on Anxiety and Depression in Emphysema

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a widespread, preventable, and treatable disease. Emphysema is one of the primary components of COPD and manifests itself via decrease in elastic recoil, hyperinflation, and increase in air trapping. Various lung-volume-reduction treatments have come up in recent years for late-stage emphysema patients. Mental disorders and especially anxiety and depression are among the frequently encountered comorbid cases observed in COPD. The aim of our study was to examine the impact of coil treatment applied for late-stage COPD-emphysema diagnosed patients on the accompanying anxiety and depressive symptoms. A total of 21 patients diagnosed with emphysema that meet the suitability criteria for coil treatment were included in the study. The accompanying anxiety and depressive symptoms of the patients were assessed via beck anxiety inventory (BAI) and beck depression inventories (BDI-I) prior to the procedure and one month later. All patients were male with an age average of 66.5 ± 5.5 (57-76). Among patients without a psychiatric diagnosis, BAI scores before and after coil treatment were determined, respectively, as 12.1 ± 6.3 (4-26) and 11.2 ± 9.3 (0-28), whereas BDI-I scores before and after coil treatment were determined, respectively, as 13.5 ± 10.4 (1-31) and 8.8 ± 10.6 (0-34), with a statistically significant difference between them. Also among patients with a psychiatric diagnosis, both anxiety and depressive symptoms decreased after coil treatment, and this reduction was found more significant for anxiety. Coil treatment as a current and novel treatment method for COPD-emphysema diagnosed patients with or without psychiatric comorbidity has a positive impact on anxiety and depressive symptoms.

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

Background:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

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.

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.

Predictors of pneumothorax following endoscopic valve therapy in patients with severe emphysema

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic valve implantation is an effective treatment for patients with advanced emphysema. Despite the minimally invasive procedure, valve placement is associated with risks, the most common of which is pneumothorax. This study was designed to identify predictors of pneumothorax following endoscopic valve implantation.

METHODS

Preinterventional clinical measures (vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, residual volume, total lung capacity, 6-minute walk test), qualitative computed tomography (CT) parameters (fissure integrity, blebs/bulla, subpleural nodules, pleural adhesions, partial atelectasis, fibrotic bands, emphysema type) and quantitative CT parameters (volume and low attenuation volume of the target lobe and the ipsilateral untreated lobe, target air trapping, ipsilateral lobe volume/hemithorax volume, collapsibility of the target lobe and the ipsilateral untreated lobe) were retrospectively evaluated in patients who underwent endoscopic valve placement (n=129). Regression analysis was performed to compare those who developed pneumothorax following valve therapy (n=46) with those who developed target lobe volume reduction without pneumothorax (n=83).

FINDING

Low attenuation volume% of ipsilateral untreated lobe (odds ratio [OR] =1.08, P=0.001), ipsilateral untreated lobe volume/hemithorax volume (OR =0.93, P=0.017), emphysema type (OR =0.26, P=0.018), pleural adhesions (OR =0.33, P=0.012) and residual volume (OR =1.58, P=0.012) were found to be significant predictors of pneumothorax. Fissure integrity (OR =1.16, P=0.075) and 6-minute walk test (OR =1.05, P=0.077) were also indicative of pneumothorax. The model including the aforementioned parameters predicted whether a patient would experience a pneumothorax 84% of the time (area under the curve =0.84).

INTERPRETATION

Clinical and CT parameters provide a promising tool to effectively identify patients at high risk of pneumothorax following endoscopic valve therapy.

Update on Nonsurgical Lung Volume Reduction Procedures

There has been a surge of interest in endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) strategies for advanced COPD. Valve implants, coil implants, biological LVR (BioLVR), bronchial thermal vapour ablation, and airway stents are used to induce lung deflation with the ultimate goal of improving respiratory mechanics and chronic dyspnea. Patients presenting with severe air trapping (e.g., inspiratory capacity/total lung capacity (TLC) < 25%, residual volume > 225% predicted) and thoracic hyperinflation (TLC > 150% predicted) have the greatest potential to derive benefit from ELVR procedures. Pre-LVRS or ELVR assessment should ideally include cardiological evaluation, high resolution CT scan, ventilation and perfusion scintigraphy, full pulmonary function tests, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. ELVR procedures are currently available in selected Canadian research centers as part of ethically approved clinical trials. If a decision is made to offer an ELVR procedure, one-way valves are the first option in the presence of complete lobar exclusion and no significant collateral ventilation. When the fissure is not complete, when collateral ventilation is evident in heterogeneous emphysema or when emphysema is homogeneous, coil implants or BioLVR (in that order) are the next logical alternatives.

Patterns of Emphysema Heterogeneity

BACKGROUND

Although lobar patterns of emphysema heterogeneity are indicative of optimal target sites for lung volume reduction (LVR) strategies, the presence of segmental, or sublobar, heterogeneity is often underappreciated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to understand lobar and segmental patterns of emphysema heterogeneity, which may more precisely indicate optimal target sites for LVR procedures.

METHODS

Patterns of emphysema heterogeneity were evaluated in a representative cohort of 150 severe (GOLD stage III/IV) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients from the COPDGene study. High-resolution computerized tomography analysis software was used to measure tissue destruction throughout the lungs to compute heterogeneity (≥15% difference in tissue destruction) between (inter-) and within (intra-) lobes for each patient. Emphysema tissue destruction was characterized segmentally to define patterns of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Segmental tissue destruction revealed interlobar heterogeneity in the left lung (57%) and right lung (52%). Intralobar heterogeneity was observed in at least one lobe of all patients. No patient presented true homogeneity at a segmental level. There was true homogeneity across both lungs in 3% of the cohort when defining heterogeneity as ≥30% difference in tissue destruction.

CONCLUSION

Many LVR technologies for treatment of emphysema have focused on interlobar heterogeneity and target an entire lobe per procedure. Our observations suggest that a high proportion of patients with emphysema are affected by interlobar as well as intralobar heterogeneity. These findings prompt the need for a segmental approach to LVR in the majority of patients to treat only the most diseased segments and preserve healthier ones.

Modifying Post-Operative Medical Care after EBV Implant May Reduce Pneumothorax Incidence

Objective

Endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) with valves has been shown to improve COPD patients with severe emphysema. However, a major complication is pneumothoraces, occurring typically soon after valve implantation, with severe consequences if not managed promptly. Based on the knowledge that strain activity is related to a higher risk of pneumothoraces, we asked whether modifying post-operative medical care with the inclusion of strict short-term limitation of strain activity is associated with a lower incidence of pneumothorax.

Methods

Seventy-two (72) emphysematous patients without collateral ventilation were treated with bronchial valves and included in the study. Thirty-two (32) patients received standard post-implantation medical management (Standard Medical Care (SMC)), and 40 patients received a modified medical care that included an additional bed rest for 48 hours and cough suppression, as needed (Modified Medical Care (MMC)).

Results

The baseline characteristics were similar for the two groups, except there were more males in the SMC cohort. Overall, ten pneumothoraces occurred up to four days after ELVR, eight pneumothoraces in the SMC, and only two in the MMC cohorts (p=0.02). Complicated pneumothoraces and pneumothoraces after upper lobe treatment were significantly lower in MMC (p=0.02). Major clinical outcomes showed no significant differences between the two cohorts.

Conclusions

In conclusion, modifying post-operative medical care to include bed rest for 48 hours after ELVR and cough suppression, if needed, might reduce the incidence of pneumothoraces. Prospective randomized studies with larger numbers of well-matched patients are needed to confirm the data.