Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May 31;7(2):00877-2020.
doi: 10.1183/23120541.00877-2020. eCollection 2021 Apr.

Lung volume reduction in emphysema: a pragmatic prospective cohort study

Affiliations

Lung volume reduction in emphysema: a pragmatic prospective cohort study

Christophe Dooms et al. ERJ Open Res. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Limited guidance exists for the implementation of lung volume reduction interventions in routine clinical care. We designed a pragmatic study to evaluate a strategy including endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) and lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) in heterogeneous emphysema. This prospective monocentre cohort study evaluated ELVR versus no-ELVR, followed by a cohort study evaluating LVRS. Primary outcome was the proportion of subjects with a forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) improvement of ⩾100 mL at 3-month follow-up. Changes in FEV1, residual volume (RV), 6-min walk distance (6MWD) and quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)) were evaluated at 6-month follow-up. Hospital stay and treatment-related serious adverse events were monitored. From 106 subjects screened, 38 subjects were enrolled comparing ELVR (n=20) with no-ELVR (n=18). After 6 months' follow-up, eligible patients were referred for LVRS (n=16) with another 6-month follow-up. At 3-month follow-up, 70% of ELVR compared to 11% of no-ELVR (p<0.001) and 69% of LVRS had an FEV1 improvement of ⩾100 mL. Between-group differences (mean±sem) for ELVR versus no-ELVR at 6-month follow-up were FEV1 +0.21±0.05 L; RV -0.95±0.21 L; 6MWD 58±17 m and SGRQ -18±5 points. At 6-month follow-up, within-group differences (mean±sem) for LVRS showed FEV1 +0.27±0.06 L; RV -1.49±0.22 L and 6MWD +75±18 m. Serious adverse events in 81% versus 45% of subjects (p=0.04) and a median hospital stay of 15 versus 5 days (p<0.001) were observed for LVRS versus ELVR, respectively. This pragmatic prospective cohort study supports a clinical approach with ELVR as a less invasive first option and LVRS as powerful alternative in severe heterogeneous emphysema.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: C. Dooms has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Blondeel has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L.J. Ceulemans has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Coolen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Everaerts has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: H. Demeyer has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: T. Troosters has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: G. Verleden has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: D. Van Raemdonck has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: W. Janssens reports grants from PulmonX (for the endobronchial valves). He receives grants from AstraZeneca and Chiesi, outside the submitted work. W. Janssens is co-founder of ArtiQ, a KU Leuven spin-off company in respiratory diseases.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram of subject flow through the pragmatic trial. MEET: multidisciplinary emphysema expert meeting; LVRS: lung volume reduction surgery; LTX: lung transplantation; CV: collateral ventilation; ELVR: endoscopic lung volume reduction. #: not eligible due to 6-min walk distance >450 m, fissure integrity on computed tomography scan <70%, intralobar heterogeneous emphysema; : not eligible due to forced expiratory volume in 1 s <20%, body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnoea, exercise capacity (BODE) index score ≥7 and homogeneous emphysema; +: subjects did not consent to per-protocol follow-up.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Primary end-point: percentage of subjects achieving a ⩾100 mL improvement in post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s in the intention-to-treat population at 3 months. p-value obtained by Fisher's exact test. ELVR: endoscopic lung volume reduction; LVRS: lung volume reduction surgery.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Absolute changes from baseline in key outcome measures at 3 and 6 months post-allocation to endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) group, no-ELVR group and lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) group. Data presented are mean±sem for a) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), b) residual volume (RV), c) 6-min walk distance (6MWD) and d) St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score.

Comment in

References

    1. Decramer M, Janssens W, Miravitlles M. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Lancet 2012; 379: 1341–1351. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60968-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vestbo J, Hurd SS, Agustí AG, et al. . Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: GOLD executive summary. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 187: 347–365. doi:10.1164/rccm.201204-0596PP - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fishman A, Martinez F, Naunheim K, et al. . A randomised trial comparing lung-volume-reduction surgery with medical therapy for severe emphysema. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2059–2073. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa030287 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Naunheim KS, Wood DE, Mohsenifar Z, et al. . Long-term follow-up of patients receiving lung-volume-reduction surgery versus medical therapy for severe emphysema by the National Emphysema Treatment Trial Research Group. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 82: 431–443. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.05.069 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lim E, Sousa I, Shah PL, et al. . Lung volume reduction surgery: reinterpreted with longitudinal data analyses methodology. Ann Thorac Surg 2020; 109: 1496–1501. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.11.018 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources