| Literature DB >> 28808575 |
Paul Leong1, Pierre-Yves Le Roux2,3, Jason Callahan2,4, Shankar Siva2,4, Michael S Hofman3,4, Daniel P Steinfort1,4.
Abstract
Endobronchial valves (EBVs) are increasingly deployed in the management of severe emphysema. Initial studies focussed on volume reduction as the mechanism, with subsequent improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). More recent studies have emphasized importance of perfusion on predicting outcomes, though findings have been inconsistent. Gallium-68 ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) photon emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is a novel imaging modality with advantages in spatial resolution, quantitation, and speed over conventional V/Q scintigraphy. We report a pilot case in which V/Q-PET/CT demonstrated discordant findings compared with quantitative CT analysis, and directed left lower lobe EBV placement. The patient experienced a significant improvement in 6-min walk distance (6MWD) without change in spirometry. Post-EBV V/Q-PET/CT demonstrated a marked decrease in unmatched (detrimental) V/Q areas and improvement in overall V/Q matching on post-EBV V/Q-PET/CT. These preliminary novel findings suggest that EBVs improve V/Q matching and may explain the observed functional improvements.Entities:
Keywords: Bronchial valve implants; bronchoscopy; positron emission tomography; ventilation
Year: 2017 PMID: 28808575 PMCID: PMC5550810 DOI: 10.1002/rcr2.253
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Respirol Case Rep ISSN: 2051-3380
Ventilation and perfusion relationships at baseline and post‐EBV.
| Left lung | Left lower lobe (target lobe) | Left upper lobe | Right lung | Right lower lobe | Right middle lobe | Right upper lobe | Whole lung | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V/Q‐PET/CT baseline | ||||||||
| Ventilation (%) | 46 | 7 | 38 | 54 | 7 | 6 | 41 | N/A |
| Perfusion (%) | 45 | 4 | 41 | 55 | 4 | 5 | 46 | N/A |
| CT volume (%) | 47 | 13 | 34 | 53 | 11 | 7 | 34 | N/A |
| Matched V/Q defects (%) | 13 | 30 | 6 | 10 | 21 | 20 | 5 | 12 |
| Unmatched V/ Q defects (%) | 37 | 67 | 26 | 34 | 76 | 44 | 18 | 35 |
| Normal V/Q (%) | 50 | 3 | 68 | 56 | 3 | 36 | 77 | 53 |
| V/Q‐PET/CT post‐EBV | ||||||||
| Ventilation (%) | 43 | 6 | 38 | 57 | 9 | 9 | 38 | N/A |
| Perfusion (%) | 45 | 5 | 40 | 55 | 7 | 8 | 41 | N/A |
| CT volume (%) | 46 | 14 | 32 | 54 | 15 | 9 | 29 | N/A |
| Matched V/Q defects (%) | 31 | 75 | 12 | 26 | 56 | 40 | 7 | 29 |
| Unmatched V/Q defects (%) | 13 | 16 | 11 | 14 | 25 | 15 | 7 | 13 |
| Normal V/Q | 56 | 9 | 76 | 60 | 19 | 46 | 86 | 58 |
CT, computed tomography; EBV, endobronchial valve; PET, photon emission tomography.
Ventilation, perfusion, and CT volume results are expressed as percentage of whole lung volume; matched, unmatched, and normal V/Q results are expressed as percentage of lobe volume.
Pre‐ and post‐bronchodilator spirometry and body plethysmography.
| Parameter | Prior to endobronchial valve insertion | 4 weeks after endobronchial valve insertion |
|---|---|---|
| FEV1 | 0.7 L (26% predicted) | 0.7 L (25% predicted) |
| FVC | 2.4 L (63% predicted) | 2.3 L (62% predicted) |
| FEV1/FVC | 31% | 32% |
| DLCO (unadjusted for haemoglobin) | 16 mL/mmHg/min (64% predicted) | 11 mL/mmHg/min (44% predicted) |
| KCO | 3.9 mL/mHg/min/L (103% predicted) | 3.1 mL/min/mHg/min (84% predicted) |
| VA | 4.2 L (62% predicted) | 3.5 L (52% predicted) |
| TLC | 7.8 L (116% predicted) | 7.4 L (110% predicted) |
| RV | 4.9 L (187% predicted) | 5.0 L (190% predicted) |
| RV/TLC | 62% predicted | 67% predicted |
| 6‐min walk distance | 160 m | 280 m |
| Resting spo2, spo2 nadir | 92%, 90% at 1 min | 94%, 91% at 4 min |
FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 s; FVC, forced vital capacity.
DLCO likely underestimated as patient did not inhale to >85% FVC; at 5 months, repeat DLCO was 58% predicted.
Figure 1Ventilation–perfusion (V/Q) relationships at baseline and post‐endobronchial valve by Gallium‐68 (Ga‐68) V/Q photon emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). Sagittal images of V/Q relationships at baseline and post‐left lower lobe endobronchial valve insertion. In the bottom third of the figure, areas of unmatched V/Q defects (red) are fewer post‐valve insertion. Areas of normal V/Q matching (green), and areas of matched V/Q defects (blue) are increased post‐valve insertion.