Nadine May1,2, Christa Niehaus-Gebele1,2, Frank Reichenberger1,2, Jürgen Behr1,2, Wolfgang Gesierich3,4,5. 1. Klinik für Pneumologie, Asklepios Fachkliniken Munich-Gauting, Robert-Koch-Allee 2, Gauting, D-82131, Germany. 2. Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Member of the German Center for Respiratory Research (Deutsches Zentrum für Lungenforschung/DZL), Gauting, Germany. 3. Klinik für Pneumologie, Asklepios Fachkliniken Munich-Gauting, Robert-Koch-Allee 2, Gauting, D-82131, Germany. wolfgang.gesierich@helios-gesundheit.de. 4. Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Member of the German Center for Respiratory Research (Deutsches Zentrum für Lungenforschung/DZL), Gauting, Germany. wolfgang.gesierich@helios-gesundheit.de. 5. Lungenzentrum, Helios Klinikum München West, Steinerweg 5, 81241, Munich, Germany. wolfgang.gesierich@helios-gesundheit.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) is based on phase 2 studies and small randomized controlled trials with in- and exclusion criteria defining a therapeutic window and contraindications. Little is known about the applicability in routine clinical practice. AIM: Which percentage of patients with severe emphysema referred to a specialized treatment center for BLVR is ultimately suitable for interventional bronchoscopic treatment? What is the relevance of the different contraindications? METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of emphysema patients referred to Asklepios Fachkliniken Munich-Gauting for BLVR between January 2014 and June 2015. RESULTS: 138 patients were referred for evaluation of BLVR. 38 patients (27.5%) underwent BLVR procedures (valves n = 18; coils n = 18; thermal vapor ablation n = 2). 100 patients (72.5%) were deemed not eligible for BLVR based on the following contraindications: 34% emphysema morphology and emphysema-related findings (severe homogeneous emphysema, extensive pleuropulmonary adhesions, postinflammatory scaring with natural volume reduction, giant bullae), 16% active smoking; 9% pulmonary function not within indication range; 8% unexpected CT findings (nodules, cancer, interstitial disease); 8% chronic ventilatory failure; 8% patient refused BLVR; 5% relevant comorbidity; 5% frequent exacerbations, 3% preserved quality of life, 4% other. CONCLUSION: BLVR is a therapeutic option for highly selected patients. In our cohort, one in four could be treated. These data highlight the limitations of BLVR under real-life conditions.
BACKGROUND: Evidence for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) is based on phase 2 studies and small randomized controlled trials with in- and exclusion criteria defining a therapeutic window and contraindications. Little is known about the applicability in routine clinical practice. AIM: Which percentage of patients with severe emphysema referred to a specialized treatment center for BLVR is ultimately suitable for interventional bronchoscopic treatment? What is the relevance of the different contraindications? METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of emphysemapatients referred to Asklepios Fachkliniken Munich-Gauting for BLVR between January 2014 and June 2015. RESULTS: 138 patients were referred for evaluation of BLVR. 38 patients (27.5%) underwent BLVR procedures (valves n = 18; coils n = 18; thermal vapor ablation n = 2). 100 patients (72.5%) were deemed not eligible for BLVR based on the following contraindications: 34% emphysema morphology and emphysema-related findings (severe homogeneous emphysema, extensive pleuropulmonary adhesions, postinflammatory scaring with natural volume reduction, giant bullae), 16% active smoking; 9% pulmonary function not within indication range; 8% unexpected CT findings (nodules, cancer, interstitial disease); 8% chronic ventilatory failure; 8% patient refused BLVR; 5% relevant comorbidity; 5% frequent exacerbations, 3% preserved quality of life, 4% other. CONCLUSION:BLVR is a therapeutic option for highly selected patients. In our cohort, one in four could be treated. These data highlight the limitations of BLVR under real-life conditions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR); Contraindications; Emphysema; Real-life data
Authors: David Price; Eric D Bateman; Alison Chisholm; Nikolaos G Papadopoulos; Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich; Emilio Pizzichini; Elizabeth V Hillyer; A Sonia Buist Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2014-02
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: T David Koster; Eva M van Rikxoort; Ralf-Harto Huebner; Felix Doellinger; Karin Klooster; Jean-Paul Charbonnier; Sri Radhakrishnan; Felix J F Herth; Dirk-Jan Slebos Journal: Respiration Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 3.580
Authors: Alfred Fishman; Fernando Martinez; Keith Naunheim; Steven Piantadosi; Robert Wise; Andrew Ries; Gail Weinmann; Douglas E Wood Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Dirk-Jan Slebos; Karin Klooster; Coenraad F N Koegelenberg; Johan Theron; Dorothy Styen; Arschang Valipour; Martin Mayse; Chris T Bolliger Journal: Thorax Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Carlos Martín Cantera; Elisa Puigdomènech; Jose Luis Ballvé; Olga Lucía Arias; Lourdes Clemente; Ramon Casas; Lydia Roig; Santiago Pérez-Tortosa; Laura Díaz-Gete; Sílvia Granollers Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Rein Posthuma; Anouk W Vaes; Kim H M Walraven; Peyman Sardari Nia; Jan U Schreiber; Hester A Gietema; Geertjan Wesseling; Emiel F M Wouters; Lowie E G W Vanfleteren Journal: Respiration Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 3.966