Lung volume reduction surgery – a comparison of the long term outcome of unilateral vs. bilateral approaches

Relevance of pleural adhesions for short- and long-term outcomes after lung volume reduction surgery

Objective

Pleural adhesions (PLAs) have been shown to be a possible risk factor for air leak after lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), but the relevance of PLA for lung function outcome remains unclear. We analyzed our LVRS cohort for the influence of PLA on short-term (ie, prolonged air leak) and long-term outcomes.

Methods

Retrospective observational cohort study with 187 consecutive patients who underwent LVRS from January 2016 to December 2019. PLA were defined as relevant if they were distributed extensively at the dorsal pleura; were present in at least at 2 areas, including the dorsal pleura; or present extensively at the mediastinal pleura. In patients with bilateral emphysema, bilateral LVRS was performed preferentially. The objectives were to quantify the association of PLA and rate of prolonged air leak (chest tube >7 days), and the association of PLA with postoperative exacerbations and with forced expiratory volume in 1 second 3 months postoperatively. The associations were quantified with odds ratios for binary outcomes, and with between-group differences for continuous outcomes. To account for missing observations, 100-fold multiple imputation was used.

Results

PLAs were found in 46 of 187 patients (24.6%). There was a 32.6% rate of prolonged air leak (n = 61), mean chest tube time was 7.84 days. A total of 94 (50.3%) LVRSs were unilateral and 93 were bilateral. There was evidence for an association between PLA and the rate of prolonged air leak (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.36 to 5.89; P = .006). There was no evidence for an association between PLA and postoperative exacerbations (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.5 to 2.45; P = .79). There was no evidence for an association between PLA and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (estimate -1.52; 95% CI -5.67 to 2.63; P = .47). Both unilateral and bilateral LVRS showed significant postoperative improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second by 27% (8.43 units; 95% CI, 3.66-13.12; P = .0006) and by 28% (7.87 units; 95% CI, 4.68-11.06; P < .0001) and a reduction in residual volume of 15% (-33.9 units; 95% CI, -56.37 to -11.42; P = .003) and 15% (-34.9 units; 95% CI, -52.57 to -17.22; P = .0001), respectively.

Conclusions

Patients should be aware of potential prolongation of hospitalization due to PLA. However, there might be no relevant influence of PLA on lung function outcomes.

Patient-directed Volume Reduction for Emphysema: Sequential Surgical and Endobronchial Techniques

BACKGROUND

Lung volume reduction (LVR) surgery has traditionally been performed as a 1-stage bilateral procedure or staged at a predetermined interval. However to maximize the overall benefit we have allowed the patient to determine the timing of further interventions and have added endobronchial LVR into the protocol. We have reviewed the long-term outcome.

METHODS

Three hundred thirty-one LVR procedures were performed on 254 patients (median age, 61 years [range, 23-79]) with baseline predicted lung function of (mean ± SD) forced expiratory volume in 1 second 28% ± 11% and residual volume 253% ± 53%. The initial procedure was by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in 236 patients (unilateral, 227; bilateral, 9), by open surgery in 5, and by endobronchial valve insertion in 13. Sixty-four patients received a second and 13 a third LVR procedure. The median time interval between first and third stage was 5.8 years (range, 1.9-10) RESULTS: In the subgroup of patients who underwent staged procedures there was a significant improvement in predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second from 28% at baseline to 34% up to 6 years. There was sustained reduction in static lung volumes up to 8 years: Predicted residual volume remained reduced from 259% to 189%. There were sustained improvements over baseline in health status: EuroQol-5D improved from 50 ± 26 to 62 ± 23 (P < .01) for up to 5 years and the Short Form 36-item questionnaire for up to 9 years. Overall 30-day mortality was 3%. Median survival was 5.6 years (95% confidence interval, 4.7-6.9).

CONCLUSIONS

A program of staged unilateral procedures of LVR has resulted in sustained benefits for up to 9 years in physiology and health status.

Staged unilateral lung volume reduction surgery: from mini-invasive to minimalist treatment strategies

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) entailing unilateral or bilateral non-anatomical resection of severely damaged emphysematous tissue carried out by thoracoscopic or open surgical approaches, under general anesthesia with single-lung ventilation, has resulted in significant and long-lasting clinical and functional benefit. Unfortunately, the morbidity rates reported by simultaneous bilateral resectional LVRS has led to raise criticism regarding its cost-effectiveness and has stimulated in recent years the development of less invasive bronchoscopic and surgical non-resectional methods of treatment that are preferentially performed in a staged unilateral fashion. We had previously proposed an innovative LVRS modality, which did not entail any resection of lung tissue and was electively carried out according to a staged unilateral strategy by a multiport thoracoscopic access, through thoracic epidural anesthesia in conscious, spontaneously ventilating patients (awake LVRS). The awake LVRS resulted in significant clinical benefit paralleling that achieved by the resectional method with lower morbidity rates and shorter hospital stay. Moreover, the awake LVRS proved also suitable to be employed in stringently selected patients to perform redo procedures following previous successful bilateral LVRS. More recently, in order to minimize the global surgery- and anesthesia-related traumas, we have modified our original non-resectional method by adopting a single thoracoscopic access as well as an anesthesia protocol entailing use of a simple intercostal block with target control sedation, to realize an ultra-minimally invasive or minimalist LVRS. Hence, a deeper investigation of the pros and cons of staged unilateral LVRS strategies as well as of the novel surgical non-resectional and redo LVRS is warranted in order to verify, the optimal strategies of treatment, which will prove to reduce the typical LVRS-related morbidity while assuring the most durable benefit in patients with advanced emphysema.

Individualised risk in patients undergoing lung volume reduction surgery: the Glenfield BFG score

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has been shown to be beneficial in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but there is low uptake, partly due to perceived concerns of high operative mortality. We aimed to develop an individualised risk score following LVRS.This was a cohort study of patients undergoing LVRS. Factors independently predicting 90-day mortality and a risk prediction score were identified. Reliability of the score was tested using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).237 LVRS procedures were performed. The multivariate analysis factors associated independently with death were: body mass index (BMI)<18.5 kg·m^-2 (OR 2.83, p=0.059), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁)<0.71 L (OR 5.47, p=0.011) and transfer factor of the lung for carbon monoxide (T_LCO) <20% (OR 5.56, p=0.031). A risk score was calculated and total score assigned. AUROC for the risk score was 0.80 and a better predictor than individual components (p<0.01). The score was stratified into three risk groups. Of the total patients, 46% were classified as low risk. Similar improvements in lung function and health status were seen in all groups. The score was introduced and tested in a further 71 patients. AUROC for 90-day mortality in this cohort was 0.84.It is possible to provide an individualised predictive risk score for LVRS, which may aid decision making for both clinicians and patients.

Bronchoscopic interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Over the past decade, several non-surgical and minimally invasive bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) techniques have been developed to treat patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). BLVR can be significantly efficacious, suitable for a broad cohort of patients, and associated with a solid safety profile at a reasonable expense. The introduction of BLVR is also expected to accelerate the further development of interventional pulmonology worldwide. Recently, results from clinical studies on BLVR techniques have been published, providing valuable information about the procedure's indications, contraindications, patient-selection criterion and outcomes. BLVR utilizing one-way endobronchial valves is gaining momentum as an accepted treatment in regular medical practice because of the identification of best responders. Patients with a heterogeneous emphysema distribution and without inter-lobar collateral ventilation show encouraging results. Furthermore, for patients with collateral ventilation, who are not considered candidates for valve treatment, and for patients with homogeneous emphysema, the introduction of lung volume reduction coil treatment is a promising solution. Moreover, with the development of newer treatment modalities, that is, biochemical sealant and thermal water vapor, the potential to treat emphysema irrespective of collateral flow, may be further increased. Nevertheless, patient selection for BLVR treatment will be crucial for the procedure's success and should be performed using a multidisciplinary team approach. Consequently, BLVR needs to be concentrated in high-volume centres that will offer better quality and experience with treatment challenges and adverse events. This review gives a general overview of BLVR from an expert and scientific perspective.

Attitudes and access to lung volume reduction surgery for COPD: a survey by the British Thoracic Society

OBJECTIVE

Lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema leads to improved survival in appropriately selected individuals, and it is therefore recommended in national and international guidelines for this group of patients. Despite this, fewer than 100 patients undergo the procedure each year in the UK. Our objective was to establish whether this reflects concerns about morbidity and mortality or difficulties in the referral pathway.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a survey of members of the British Thoracic Society by email to investigate this in the second half of 2013. The survey included questions about access to investigations, the indications for lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), whether a multidisciplinary meeting discussed eligibility of patients for LVRS and what the morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure was.

RESULTS

There were 65 responses, 82% from respiratory physicians. Roughly half of the respondents were either unsure about the risks of death or prolonged (>30 days) hospital stay involved or significantly over-estimated them. In total, 70% did not have a specific multidisciplinary team to discuss the management of patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There was no consensus as to which patients with COPD should undergo a CT scan to evaluate them for possible surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with COPD require a systematic and multidisciplinary approach to assessment for LVRS and these survey data suggest that work is needed to deliver this evidence-based therapy in a consistent and comprehensive way across the UK.

[Lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema and bullous pulmonary emphysema]

The improvement of respiratory symptoms for emphysematous patients by surgery is a concept that has evolved over time. Initially used for giant bullae, this surgery was then applied to patients with diffuse microbullous emphysema. The physiological and pathological concepts underlying these surgical procedures are the same in both cases: improve respiratory performance by reducing the high intrapleural pressure. The functional benefit of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) in the severe diffuse emphysema has been validated by the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) and the later studies which allowed to identify prognostic factors. The quality of the clinical, morphological and functional data made it possible to develop recommendations now widely used in current practice. Surgery for giant bullae occurring on little or moderately emphysematous lung is often a simpler approach but also requires specialised support to optimize its results.

[Surgical management of COPD distension]

INTRODUCTION

The impressive results seen when giant and compressing lung bullae are resected has inspired pneumonologists and thoracic surgeons to consider the possibility of applying a similar approach to the treatment of respiratory failure due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

STATE OF THE ART

The major problem with this surgical indication lies in our ability to understand fully the pathophysiology of lesions and thus identify which emphysematous patients will have a response most similar to that achieved in purely bullous disease.

PERSPECTIVES

At the present time consideration should be given as to whether surgery is the only means of reducing pulmonary distension. Indeed, as endoscopic alternatives develop could they reproduce its beneficial effects and what would be their place compared to the surgery?

CONCLUSIONS

While waiting the development of these innovations, if the selection of the candidates is correct, the surgical treatment of lung hyperinflation can temporarily improve the quality of life of these patients by decreasing their dyspnea and increasing their exercise tolerance.

Lung volume reduction surgery and lung transplantation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Medical treatment of emphysema does not alter the natural progression of the disease. Surgical techniques are an attractive conceptual approach to treat hyperinflation in these patients. Lung volume reduction surgery and lung transplantation are appropriate therapeutic options for a selected population with emphysema. We will review the available evidence to support these approaches.

Is the initial feasibility of lobectomy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer in severe heterogeneous emphysema justified by long-term survival?

BACKGROUND

The feasibility of anatomical lobectomy in patients with bronchial carcinoma in an area of severe heterogeneous emphysema whose respiratory reserve is outside operability guidelines has previously been confirmed. A review was undertaken to determine whether this approach is justified by long-term survival.

METHODS

A single surgeon's 8 year experience of 118 consecutive patients (74 men) of median age 70 years (range 45-84) who underwent upper lobectomy for pathological stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was reviewed. The preoperative characteristics, perioperative course and survival of the 27 cases with severe heterogeneous emphysema of apical distribution and a predicted postoperative forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ppoFEV(1)) of <40% (lobarLVRS group) were compared with the remaining 91 cases with a ppoFEV(1) of >40% (control group).

RESULTS

Postoperative mortality was 1 of 27 in the lobarLVRS group and 2 of 91 in the control group (p = NS). Five-year survival in the lobarLVRS group was 35% compared with 65% in the control group without concomitant severe emphysema (p = 0.001), although rates of tumour recurrence were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term survival after lobarLVRS for stage I lung cancer is limited by physiological rather than oncological factors. However, outcomes are still better than those reported for any other modality of treatment in this group of high-risk patients. This finding justifies the decision to offer lobectomy in these selected cases.

[Lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema: a unilateral or bilateral approach?]

INTRODUCTION

Lung Volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is a recognized therapeutic option for patients presenting with severe and disabling pulmonary emphysema. Case selection is based upon clinical, morphological and functional criteria.

STATE OF THE ART

LVRS has shown promising results, with improvements in exercise capacity, pulmonary function and quality of life, in selected patients with severe and disabling emphysema. A variety of surgical techniques have been described. The procedure may be unilateral or bilateral, through a sternotomy or by a video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) technique. The controversial aspects of the surgical technique will be analysed and discussed in the following review.

PERSPECTIVES

A bilateral approach clearly offers a better functional improvement when compared to a unilateral procedure, however, the postoperative functional decline appears greater and more rapid after a bilateral procedure. A unilateral approach, with often less postoperative morbidity, allows the option to perform a future contra-lateral procedure in the event of further clinical or functional deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected cases LVRS is an effective treatment for severe pulmonary emphysema. Different surgical techniques have been described. Nowadays VATS is considered to be the technique of choice, with the option to carry out a future unilateral or bilateral procedure.

[Emphysema and lung volume reduction surgery--a case report]

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has been proposed as a palliative therapy in severe emphysema, with good results in lung function improvement, exercise capacity and quality of life. The authors present a case report of a 34 years old man with severe, heterogeneous lung emphysema submit to bilateral LVRS in 2000 January. Pre-surgical conditions, clinical and radiological evolution after surgery and for a 30 months follow up were analysed. Based on a literature revision, some technical aspects of LVRS, selection criteria and comparative study of medical and surgical therapy were discussed.

[Surgical management of emphysema]

Surgery is an important therapeutic option for emphysema patients with invalidating dyspnea and poor quality-of-life. Preoperative tests must determine the degree of functional impairment (dyspnea score, walking test, quality-of-life) and evaluate lesion reversibility (imaging, function tests, TLCO, blood gases, scintigraphy, right microcatheterism) and assess the patient's general health status. Besides lung transplantation, the only surgical alternative is resection which, depending on the type of parenchymal damage, can involve excision of bullae or volume reduction. Several modalities can be proposed: atypical resection of the apexes via sternotomy, multiple unilateral atypical resection, simple lobectomy. The choice depends on the distribution of the parenchymal destruction and also on the severity of the emphysema and the patient's age. Operative mortality is now well below 10%. Volume reduction provides significant functional improvement in 80% of patients but with a temporary effect (4-5 years). Bullae excision is particularly important since functional recovery is achieved early and persists.

Salvage intensive care following initial recovery from pulmonary resection: is it justified?

BACKGROUND

There is little objective evidence concerning the outcome of thoracic surgical patients who suffer postoperative complications. We assessed the outcome and cost of care for patients admitted to the intensive care unit after initial recovery from pulmonary resection in a high dependency unit.

METHODS

In a single surgeon's practice, over a 3-year period, 28 patients [22 male, median age 66 years old (range 48-80 years old)] required intensive care admission. Preoperative pulmonary function, reason for initial operation, cause of intensive care admission, interventions, and outcome in hospital and at 6 months was studied. The cost of care provided was estimated.

RESULTS

The major reason for intensive care admission was respiratory failure; 61% of patients required mechanical ventilation and 54% renal support. All 4 patients who required both mechanical ventilation and hemofiltration died. Intensive care and 6-month survival were 54% and 36%, respectively. On univarate analysis mechanical ventilation and renal support predicted both hospital mortality (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003) and 6-month mortality (p = 0.003 and p = 0.01). Patients who died in intensive care stayed longer (median stay 9 vs 3 days; p = 0.04) at a higher cost per patient (median cost $6975 vs $19,375; p = 0.04) than those who survived.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who suffer complications after lung resection and require salvage intensive care, particularly mechanical ventilation, have a poor prognosis. In the light of this data the onset of two-organ failure should prompt an informed discussion as to whether escalation of treatment is in the patient's best interest.