Endobronchial valves for emphysema and persistent air-leak: 10-year experience in an Asian country
-
Published:2024-04-03
Issue:1
Volume:24
Page:
-
ISSN:1471-2466
-
Container-title:BMC Pulmonary Medicine
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:BMC Pulm Med
Author:
Huh Jin-Young,Jeong Byeong-Ho,Yoon Ho il,Kim Hojoong,Cho Young-Jae,Kim Changhwan,Lee Seung Jun,Kim Hwan hee,Ra Seung Won,Lee Ye Jin,Kim Beong Ki,Kim Sung Kyoung,Seo Ki Hyun,Lee Sei Won
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Endobronchial valve (EBV) therapy, a validated method for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) in severe emphysema, has been explored for persistent air-leak (PAL) management. However, its effectiveness and safety in the Asian population require further real-world evaluation. In this study, we assessed the outcomes of treatment with EBV within this demographic.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective analysis of medical records from 11 Korean centers. For the emphysema cohort, inclusion criteria were patients diagnosed with emphysema who underwent bronchoscopy intended for BLVR. We assessed these patients for clinical outcomes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All patients with PAL who underwent treatment with EBV were included. We identified the underlying causes of PAL and evaluated clinical outcomes after the procedure.
Results
The severe emphysema cohort comprised 192 patients with an average age of 70.3 years, and 95.8% of them were men. Ultimately, 137 underwent treatment with EBV. Three months after the procedure, the BLVR group demonstrated a significant improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (+160 mL vs. +30 mL; P = 0.009). Radiographic evidence of lung volume reduction 6 months after BLVR was significantly associated with improved survival (adjusted hazard ratio 0.020; 95% confidence interval 0.038–0.650; P = 0.010). Although pneumothorax was more common in the BLVR group (18.9% vs. 3.8%; P = 0.018), death was higher in the no-BLVR group (38.5% vs. 54.5%, P = 0.001), whereas other adverse events were comparable between the groups. Within the subset of 18 patients with PAL, the predominant causes of air-leak included spontaneous secondary pneumothorax (44.0%), parapneumonic effusion/empyema (22.2%), and post-lung resection surgery (16.7%). Following the treatment, the majority (77.8%) successfully had their chest tubes removed. Post-procedural complications were minimal, with two incidences of hemoptysis and one of empyema, all of which were effectively managed.
Conclusions
Treatment with EBV provides substantial clinical benefits in the management of emphysema and PAL in the Asian population, suggesting a favorable outcome for this therapeutic approach.
Funder
Pulmonx Corporation, Redwood City, CA, USA
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference36 articles.
1. Sciurba FC, Ernst A, Herth FJ, Strange C, Criner GJ, Marquette CH, Kovitz KL, Chiacchierini RP, Goldin J, McLennan G. A randomized study of endobronchial valves for advanced emphysema. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(13):1233–44. 2. Herth FJ, Noppen M, Valipour A, Leroy S, Vergnon JM, Ficker JH, Egan JJ, Gasparini S, Agusti C, Holmes-Higgin D, et al. Efficacy predictors of lung volume reduction with Zephyr valves in a European cohort. Eur Respir J. 2012;39(6):1334–42. 3. Criner GJ, Sue R, Wright S, Dransfield M, Rivas-Perez H, Wiese T, Sciurba FC, Shah PL, Wahidi MM, de Oliveira HG, et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial of zephyr endobronchial valve treatment in heterogeneous emphysema (LIBERATE). Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;198(9):1151–64. 4. Kemp SV, Slebos DJ, Kirk A, Kornaszewska M, Carron K, Ek L, Broman G, Hillerdal G, Mal H, Pison C, et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial of zephyr endobronchial valve treatment in heterogeneous emphysema (TRANSFORM). Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;196(12):1535–43. 5. Valipour A, Slebos DJ, Herth F, Darwiche K, Wagner M, Ficker JH, Petermann C, Hubner RH, Stanzel F, Eberhardt R. Endobronchial valve therapy in patients with homogeneous emphysema. Results from the IMPACT study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194(9):1073–82.
|
|