Airway bacterial colonization and serum C-reactive protein are associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation following bronchoscopic lung volume reduction

Biofilm infections of endobronchial valves in COPD patients after endoscopic lung volume reduction: a pilot study with FISHseq

Endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) using endobronchial valves (EBV) is a treatment option for a subset of patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), suffering from emphysema and hyperinflation. In this pilot study, we aimed to determine the presence of bacterial biofilm infections on EBV and investigate their involvement in lack of clinical benefits, worsening symptomatology, and increased exacerbations that lead to the decision to remove EBVs. We analyzed ten COPD patients with ELVR who underwent EBV removal. Clinical data were compared to the microbiological findings from conventional EBV culture. In addition, EBV were analyzed by FISHseq, a combination of Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with PCR and sequencing, for visualization and identification of microorganisms and biofilms. All ten patients presented with clinical symptoms, including pneumonia and recurrent exacerbations. Microbiological cultures from EBV detected several microorganisms in all ten patients. FISHseq showed either mixed or monospecies colonization on the EBV, including oropharyngeal bacterial flora, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Streptococcus spp., and Fusobacterium sp. On 5/10 EBV, FISHseq visualized biofilms, on 1/10 microbial microcolonies, on 3/10 single microorganisms, and on 1/10 no microorganisms. The results of the study demonstrate the presence of biofilms on EBV for the first time and its potential involvement in increased exacerbations and clinical worsening in patients with ELVR. However, further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the clinical relevance of biofilm formation on EBV and appropriate treatment options to avoid infections in patients with ELVR.

Lung Volume Reduction Followed by Lung Transplantation in Emphysema-A Multicenter Matched Analysis

Objective: The impact of previous lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) or endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) on lung transplantation (LuTX) remains unclear. This study assesses the risk of previous lung volume reduction on the outcome of a later LuTX.

Methods: Patients suffering from emphysema who underwent bilateral LuTX were included in this multicenter analysis. Study groups were defined as: previous LVRS, previous ELVR, controls. Imbalances were corrected by coarsened exact matching for center, gender, age, diagnosis, and BMI. A comparative analysis of intraoperative characteristics, perioperative outcome and long-term survival was performed.

Results: 615 patients were included (LVRS = 26; ELVR = 60). Compared to controls, LVRS patients had a higher rate of postoperative ECMO (15.4 vs. 3.9%; p = 0.006), whereas ELVR patients suffered more often from wound infections (8.9% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.018). Perioperative outcome, duration of ventilation, ICU stay, and hospital stay were comparable between groups. Bacterial colonization of the airway differed significantly between both LVR groups and controls in pre- and post-LuTX cultures. Survival was not impacted (1-/3-/5-year survival for LVRS: 92.3%/85.7%/77.1%; controls: 91.3%/82.4%/76.3%; p = 0.58 | ELVR: 93.1%/91%/91%; controls 91.2%/81.7%/75.3%; p = 0.17).

Conclusion: Lung volume reduction does not impact short and long-time survival after bilateral LuTX. Due to differences in airway colonization after LVR, caution to prevent infectious complications is warranted.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Prevalence and Impact of Pulmonary Bacterial Colonisation in Stable State Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)

Background: Half of acute exacerbations of COPD are due to bacterial infection, and the other half are likely influenced by microbial colonisation. The same organisms commonly cultured during acute exacerbations are often found in the sputum of patients during stability. A robust assessment of the prevalence of potentially pathogenic microorganisms (PPMs) in the sputum of stable COPD patients may help to inform the targeted prevention of exacerbation by these organisms. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to determine the prevalence of PPMs in patients with COPD in the stable state. Meta-analysis of prevalence was carried out using the Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation random effects model, and sub-group analysis was performed for sputum modality. Prevalence of total and individual PPMs was calculated from patient-level data from individual studies. Results: Pooled prevalence of PPMs identified by sputum culture was found to be 41% (95% CI 36–47%). Significant heterogeneity was found across all studies, which can likely be attributed to inconsistent measuring and reporting of PPMs. The most commonly reported organisms were H. influenzae, M catarrhalis, S. pneumoniae, S. aureus, and P. aeruginosa. Declining lung function was weakly correlated with prevalence of PPMs. Conclusion: The airways of patients with COPD are colonised with PPMs during the stable state in almost half of patients. A complex relationship likely exists between the microbiome in the stable state and the phenotype of COPD patients. Targeted microbial therapy for preventing exacerbations of COPD should carefully consider the stable microbiome as well as the exacerbated.

Bacterial infections in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Due to the importance of Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as the fourth cause of mortality worldwide and the lack of studies evaluating the prevalence of bacterial infections in disease exacerbation, this systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the prevalence rate of bacterial infections in COPD patients.

METHODS

PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus databases were systematically searched for population-based prevalence studies (1980-2018). MeSH terms for "Bacterial infections" and "AECOPD" were used as search keywords. The selected studies were filtered according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fixed and random-effects models were used for estimation of summary effect sizes. Between-study heterogeneity, as well as publication bias, were calculated.

RESULTS

Finally, 118 out of 31,440 studies were selected. The overall estimation of the prevalence of bacterial infection was 49.59% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4418-0.55]. The heterogeneity in estimating the pooled prevalence of bacterial infections was shown in the studies (Cochran Q test: 6615, P < 0.0001, I² = 98.23%). In addition, S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, M. catarrhalis, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, and S. aureus were the most prevalent reported bacteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results as the first meta-analysis for the issue demonstrated that bacterial infections are an important risk factor for AECOPD. Further studies must be performed for understanding the exact role of bacterial agents in AECOPD and help physicians for more applicable preventive and therapeutic measurements.

Lung volume reduction followed by lung transplantation-considerations on selection criteria and outcome

Lung transplantation (LuTX) and lung volume reduction (LVR), either surgical (LVRS: lung volume reduction surgery) or endoscopic (ELVR: endoscopic lung volume reduction), are established therapies in the treatment of end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Careful patient selection is crucial for each intervention. If these techniques are sequentially applied there is a paucity of available data and individual center experiences vary depending on details in selection criteria and operative technique. This review aims to summarize the published data with a focus on LuTX after LVRS. This review covers patient selection for LuTX and LVR, technical considerations, limitations and outcomes. Published literature was identified by systematic search on Medline and appropriate papers were reviewed. Seven case reports/series, 7 comparative observational studies and one multicenter database analysis incorporating a total of 284 patients with LuTX and LVR were evaluated. Prior LVR can significantly affect intraoperative and postoperative risks after subsequent LuTX. Careful patient selection and timing and the choice of appropriate techniques such as minimal invasive LVRS and using ECMO as extracorporeal support during LuTX if required can minimize those risks, ultimately leading to very good postoperative outcomes in terms of lung function and survival. LVRS has the potential to delay listing and to bridge patients to LuTX by improving their physical condition while on the waiting list. After single lung transplantation (SLuTX) contralateral LVRS can counteract the deleterious effects of native lung hyperinflation (NLH). LVR and LuTX are adjunct therapies in the treatment of end-stage COPD. The combination of both can safely be considered in selected patients.

Review of lung sealant technologies for lung volume reduction in pulmonary disease

Emphysema is an incurable and underdiagnosed disease with obstructive ventilatory impairment of lung function. Despite decades of research, medical treatments available so far did not significantly improve the survival benefits. Different bronchoscopic methods for lung volume reduction (LVR) in emphysema were used in the past 2 decades aiming to close the airways serving the hyperinflated lung regions and to allow the gas in the more distal bullas to be absorbed. Sealants and adhesives can be natural/biological, synthetic and semisynthetic. In lung surgery, lung sealants are used to treat prolonged air leak, which is the most common complication. Sealants can also be applied in bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) as they administer into the peripheral airways where they polymerize and act as tissue glue on the surface of the lung to seal the target area to cause durable permanent absorption atelectasis. Initial studies analyzed the efficacy of bronchoscopic instillation of a fibrinogen-thrombin complex solution in advanced emphysema. Future studies will analyze the effects of adding chondroitin sulfate and poly-L-lysine to thrombin-fibrinogen complex thus promoting fibroblast attachment, proliferation and scarring, causing bronchial fibrostenosis and preventing ventilation of the affected part of the lung. Modifications of these methods were later developed, and the efficacy of BLVR with other sealants was analyzed in clinical studies. Results from current studies using this treatment method are promising showing that it is effective in improving exercise tolerance and quality of life in patients with advanced emphysema. It seems that subjective benefits in dyspnea scores and quality of life are more marked than improvements in lung function tests. The safety profile of sealant techniques in BLVR was mostly acceptable in clinical studies. The definite conclusions about the effectiveness of sealant in BLVR could be difficult because only a small population was involved in the current studies. More randomized large controlled studies are needed in establishing the definite role of biological BLVR in the bronchoscopic treatment of emphysema.

New bacterial growth in bronchial secretions after bronchoscopic valve implantation

Background

Bronchoscopic valve implantation is an established treatment in selected patients with severe lung emphysema. There is evidence in literature of increased bacterial colonization of various implants. So far, it is unclear if an increased bacterial colonization can also be observed after endoscopic valve therapy.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of patients with examination of the bronchial secretions for presence or change of bacterial growth before and after valve implantation.

Results

Overall, 144 patients who underwent bronchoscopic follow-up after valve implantation were included in this analysis. Prior to valve placement, only 7 out of 144 consecutive emphysema patients (5%) presented with evidence of bacterial colonization, whereas 137 patients (95%) showed no bacterial growth prior to valve placement. One hundred seven out of the 137 patients (78%) showed new bacterial growth after valve implantation. Almost 38% of the patients who presented with a new bacterial growth had evidence of Viridans streptococci, Rothia mucilaginousa and Neisseria species simultaneously, as bacterial colonization. Pathogenic bacterial growth was recorded for Staphylococcus aureus (18%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (13%) and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (9%) microorganisms. There was also a significant bacterial growth by Moraxella catarrhalis (26%) and anaerobic bacteria (23%), especially in patients with complete atelectasis after successful endoscopic lung volume reduction. For all of the 7 patients, the presented initial bacterial colonization showed a change in the flora after bronchoscopy valve implantation.

Conclusion

In this study we observed an increased bacterial colonization in the long term after valve implantation. This finding needs further evaluation regarding its possible clinical relevance but should be taken into consideration in the follow-up of these patients.

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction procedures for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

In the recent years, a variety of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) procedures have emerged that may provide a treatment option to participants suffering from moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of BLVR on the short- and long-term health outcomes in participants with moderate to severe COPD and determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of each individual technique.

SEARCH METHODS

Studies were identified from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR) and by handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. All searches are current until 07 December 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data, if available.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. Where possible, data from more than one study were combined in a meta-analysis using RevMan 5 software.

MAIN RESULTS

AeriSealOne RCT of 95 participants found that AeriSeal compared to control led to a significant median improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) (18.9%, interquartile range (IQR) -0.7% to 41.9% versus 1.3%, IQR -8.2% to 12.9%), and higher quality of life, as measured by the St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) (-12 units, IQR -22 units to -5 units, versus -3 units, IQR -5 units to 1 units), P = 0.043 and P = 0.0072 respectively. Although there was no significant difference in mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.90, 95% CI 0.14 to 62.15), adverse events were more common for participants treated with AeriSeal (OR 3.71, 95% CI 1.34 to 10.24). The quality of evidence found in this prematurely terminated study was rated low to moderate. Airway bypass stentsTreatment with airway bypass stents compared to control did not lead to significant between-group changes in FEV₁ (0.95%, 95% CI -0.16% to 2.06%) or SGRQ scores (-2.00 units, 95% CI -5.58 units to 1.58 units), as found by one study comprising 315 participants. There was no significant difference in mortality (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.77), nor were there significant differences in adverse events (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.73) between the two groups. The quality of evidence was rated moderate to high. Endobronchial coilsThree studies comprising 461 participants showed that treatment with endobronchial coils compared to control led to a significant between-group mean difference in FEV₁ (10.88%, 95% CI 5.20% to 16.55%) and SGRQ (-9.14 units, 95% CI -11.59 units to -6.70 units). There were no significant differences in mortality (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.29), but adverse events were significantly more common for participants treated with coils (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.23). The quality of evidence ranged from low to high. Endobronchial valvesFive studies comprising 703 participants found that endobronchial valves versus control led to significant improvements in FEV₁ (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.64) and scores on the SGRQ (-7.29 units, 95% CI -11.12 units to -3.45 units). There were no significant differences in mortality between the two groups (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.43) but adverse events were more common in the endobronchial valve group (OR 5.85, 95% CI 2.16 to 15.84). Participant selection plays an important role as absence of collateral ventilation was associated with superior clinically significant improvements in health outcomes. The quality of evidence ranged from low to high. Intrabronchial valvesIn the comparison of partial bilateral placement of intrabronchial valves to control, one trial favoured control in FEV₁ (-2.11% versus 0.04%, P = 0.001) and one trial found no difference between the groups (0.9 L versus 0.87 L, P = 0.065). There were no significant differences in SGRQ scores (MD 2.64 units, 95% CI -0.28 units to 5.56 units) or mortality rates (OR 4.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 28.94), but adverse events were more frequent (OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.48 to 7.84) in participants treated with intrabronchial valves. The lack of functional benefits may be explained by the procedural strategy used, as another study (22 participants) compared unilateral versus partial bilateral placement, finding significant improvements in FEV₁ and SGRQ when using the unilateral approach. The quality of evidence ranged between moderate to high. Vapour ablationOne study of 69 participants found significant mean between-group differences in FEV₁ (14.70%, 95% CI 7.98% to 21.42%) and SGRQ (-9.70 units, 95% CI -15.62 units to -3.78 units), favouring vapour ablation over control. There was no significant between-group difference in mortality (OR 2.82, 95% CI 0.13 to 61.06), but vapour ablation led to significantly more adverse events (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.00 to 14.97). The quality of evidence ranged from low to moderate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results for selected BLVR procedures indicate they can provide significant and clinically meaningful short-term (up to one year) improvements in health outcomes, but this was at the expense of increased adverse events. The currently available evidence is not sufficient to assess the effect of BLVR procedures on mortality. These findings are limited by the lack of long-term follow-up data, limited availability of cost-effectiveness data, significant heterogeneity in results, presence of skew and high CIs, and the open-label character of a number of the studies.

Lung transplantation after endoscopic lung volume reduction

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) has become an established treatment option in selected patients with end-stage lung emphysema. ELVR, however, does not always prevent disease progression, and patients may inevitably be considered for lung transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

Currently, limited data exist regarding the impact of preceding ELVR on lung transplantation outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center analysis of lung transplantation (LTx) waiting list candidates, who had previously undergone ELVR for emphysema between 2010 and 2014, was performed. Outcomes were compared to matched (1:2) controls who underwent LTx for emphysema without previous ELVR. The 12-month survival after LTx represented the primary end point.

RESULTS

In total 23/693 (3%) patients listed for LTx between January 2010 and May 2014 had undergone ELVR, of whom 20/23 (87%) proceeded to LTx (ELVR group). Forty matched non-ELVR emphysema patients acted as controls. Bronchiectasis on CT prior to LTx was more evident in ELVR patients [11/20 (55%) vs. 12/40 (30%); p = 0.04] as well as airway colonization after LTx [10/20 (50%) vs. 6/40 (15%); p = 0.004]. Among ELVR patients, the most prevalent colonizing organism was Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (4/10 patients, 40%). No significant differences were observed in LTx waiting list time, duration of LTx procedure, ventilatory support, ICU stay after LTx or time to hospital discharge. One ELVR patient (5%) died 189 days after LTx from pneumonia, compared to 1 non-ELVR patient (3%) who died after 269 days (p = 0.61).

CONCLUSIONS

Previous ELVR treatment was not associated with differing outcomes following LTx. Increased bacterial colonization rates were evident and warrant further investigation.