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

Comparative outcomes of lung volume reduction surgery and lung transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lung volume reduction (LVR) and lung transplantation (LTx) have been used in different populations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. To date, comparative study of LVR and LTx has not been performed. We sought to address this gap by pooling the existing evidence in the literature.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed to identify all prospective studies on LVR and LTx published since 2000. Baseline characteristics, perioperative variables, and clinical outcomes were extracted and pooled for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis included 65 prospective studies comprising 3,671 patients [LTx: 15 studies (n=1,445), LVR: 50 studies (n=2,226)]. Mean age was 60 [95% confidence interval (CI): 58-62] years and comparable between the two groups. Females were 51% (95% CI: 30-71%) in the LTx group vs. 28% (95% CI: 21-36%) in LVR group (P=0.05). Baseline 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and pulmonary function tests were comparable except for the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), which was lower in the LTx group [21.8% (95% CI: 16.8-26.7%) vs. 27.3% (95% CI: 25.5-29.2%), P=0.04]. Postoperatively, both groups experienced improved FEV1, however post-LTx FEV1 was significantly higher than post-LVR FEV1 [54.9% (95% CI: 41.4-68.4%) vs. 32.5% (95% CI: 30.1-34.8%), P<0.01]. 6MWT was also improved after both procedures [LTx: 212.9 (95% CI: 119.0-306.9) to 454.4 m (95% CI: 334.7-574.2), P<0.01; LVR: 286 (95% CI: 270.2-301.9) to 409.1 m (95% CI: 392.1-426.0), P<0.01], however, with no significant difference between the groups. Pooled survival over time showed no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LTx results in better FEV1 but otherwise has comparable outcomes to LVR.

The narrative review of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management in Turkey: medical treatment, pulmonary rehabilitation and endobronchial volume reduction

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the most common chronic diseases. In Turkey, the prevalence of COPD has been shown at rates of 9.1% to 19.1%, and COPD was found to be the third leading cause of mortality and eighth leading cause of disability. In several national multicentral studies, a high rate of non-adherence to pharmacologic treatment according to GOLD was found to be high, and the most commonly prescribed treatment was the triple regimen. The most important non-pharmacologic treatment of COPD is pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), which is also highly recommended in Turkey, but it is also underutilized, like in other countries. Awareness of healthcare professionals and patients should increase in Turkey. The recommendations in content and modality of programs are similar to international guidelines. Another non-pharmacologic treatment is endobronchial volume reduction (EBVR). Although there is limited number of studies about EBVR, in national reports, the importance of patient selection, method, close follow-up after intervention, and applications in experienced centers are emphasized to decrease the economic burden of this expensive treatment. There is still great need for further randomized studies about pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment and additionally, a close collaboration between healthcare professionals, physicians, professional societies of pulmonology, planners of reimbursement system, patients, patient advocacy groups and the general public should be established.

Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction with Autologous Blood: What is the Evidence?

Biological lung volume reduction (BioLVR) is a novel and low-cost endobronchial treatment method aimed at reducing the volume of the target lung lobe using biological agents, including fibrin-based hydrogel, fibrinogen, and autologous blood (AB) with thrombin. BioLVR induces local inflammation, resulting in acute airway obstruction, resorption atelectasis, fibrosis, and finally tissue remodeling by contraction of the target lobe and reduction in the lung volume, similar to the application of hot water vapor and foam. In addition, patients with severe impairment in lung function and quality of life may refuses to undergo surgery, resulting in limited treatment options. In such complex clinical scenarios, BioLVR with AB appears to be a good therapeutic option. These treatment modalities resulted in favorable outcomes in patients with heterogeneous and bullous emphysema, pulmonary lymphangioleiomyomatosis, and giant bullous lesions. AB applications result in functional improvement, improvement in the quality of life, decrease in dyspnea scores, and reduction in the size of bullae. Based on the available evidence, application of AB for lung volume reduction is minimally invasive and well tolerated by patients. There was no incidence of pneumothorax or mortality. This review aimed to investigate the benefits, complications, and future perspectives of AB application as BioLVR in the treatment of hyperinflated lung diseases.

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.