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
Observational Study
. 2025;104(4):281-289.
doi: 10.1159/000542806. Epub 2024 Nov 25.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Different Types of One-Way Valves in Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction in Patients with Severe Lung Emphysema

Thomas Sgarbossa  1 , Philipp Borchers  1 , Jacopo Saccomanno  1 , Katharina Ahrens  1 , Hannah Friederike Wüstefeld  2 , Eva Pappe  1 , Uta Wuelfing  3 , Ulrich Klein  3 , Martin Witzenrath  1 , Franz Stanzel  3 , Christian Grah  2 , Ralf-Harto Hübner  1
Affiliations
Observational Study

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Different Types of One-Way Valves in Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction in Patients with Severe Lung Emphysema

Thomas Sgarbossa et al. Respiration. 2025.

Abstract

Introduction: Endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) with valves is an effective intervention in patients with severe lung emphysema. Two types of valves are established in clinical practice: Zephyr endobronchial valves (EBVs) and Spiration Valve System (SVS). We aimed to compare outcomes and the safety associated with these two types of one-way valves.

Methods: Data were collected from three German lung emphysema centers as part of a prospective observational study focusing on lung volume reduction. Two groups were formed based on valve types. In both groups, lung function (FEV1, RV, diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, pCO2), 6-min walking distance (6MWD), quality of life (SGRQ, mMRC, CAT), and complication rate were recorded at baseline and at follow-up 3 to 6 months later.

Results: A total of 54 patients were treated with SVS valves and 99 patients with EBV. There were no significant differences between both groups at baseline. Notably, both types of valves exhibited significant enhancements in lung function and quality of life. Interestingly, there were no significant differences in the median change of all measured parameters for both groups, suggesting comparable improvements in EBV and SVS. Pneumothorax was the most common complication for both valve types. The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between groups.

Conclusion: Our study suggests that both types of valves are safe and effective in the treatment of severe lung emphysema. We recommend choosing the valve type based on individual bronchial anatomy. However, further randomized studies are needed to confirm our results.

Keywords: Endoscopic lung volume reduction; Lung emphysema.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare the following financial or nonfinancial interests which may be considered as potential conflicts of interest: Philipp Borchers: honoraria from GSK. Jacopo Saccomanno: honoraria from Pulmonx, Chiesi; travel expenses from Pulmonx, Medtronic, and AstraZeneca. Martin Witzenrath: grants from CAPNETZ STIFTUNG, BMBF (Federal Ministry of Education and Research), DFG (German Research Foundation), Biotest, Pantherna, Aptarion; honoraria from Biotest, Pantherna, Aptarion, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Insmed, Gilead, Pfizer, Boehringer. Ralf-Harto Hübner: honoraria from Pulmonx, Olympus; Head of Lungenemphysem Register e.V.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Flowchart of patient selection.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Stolz D, Mkorombindo T, Schumann DM, Agusti A, Ash SY, Bafadhel M, et al. . Towards the elimination of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Lancet Commission. Lancet. 2022;400(10356):921–72. - PMC - PubMed
    1. GBD Chronic Respiratory Disease Collaborators . Prevalence and attributable health burden of chronic respiratory diseases, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(6):585–96. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adeloye D, Song P, Zhu Y, Campbell H, Sheikh A, Rudan I, et al. . Global, regional, and national prevalence of, and risk factors for, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 2019: a systematic review and modelling analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10(5):447–58. - PMC - PubMed
    1. GBD 2017 Causes of Death Collaborators . Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1736–88. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Agustí A, Celli BR, Criner GJ, Halpin D, Anzueto A, Barnes P, et al. . Global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease 2023 report: GOLD executive summary. Arch Bronconeumol. 2023;59(4):232–48. - PubMed