Endobronchial coils for emphysema: Dual mechanism of action on lobar residual volume reduction

Surgical and bronchoscopic pulmonary function-improving procedures in lung emphysema

COPD is a highly prevalent, chronic and irreversible obstructive airway disease without curative treatment. Standard therapeutic strategies, both non-pharmacological and pharmacological, have only limited effects on lung function parameters of patients with severe disease. Despite optimal pharmacological treatment, many patients with severe COPD still have a high burden of dyspnoea and a poor quality of life. If these patients have severe lung emphysema, with hyperinflation as the driver of symptoms and exercise intolerance, lung volume reduction may be an effective treatment with a significant impact on lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life. Currently, different lung volume reduction approaches, both surgical and bronchoscopic, have shown encouraging results and have been implemented in COPD treatment recommendations. Nevertheless, choosing the optimal lung volume reduction strategy for an individual patient remains challenging. Moreover, there is still room for improving durability of effect and safety in all available procedures. Ongoing and innovative research is essential to push this field forwards. This review provides an overview of results and limitations of the current lung volume reduction options for patients with severe lung emphysema and hyperinflation.

Efficiency and Reliability of Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction Coil Application in Patients with Severe Emphysema

Objectives

In the past years, surgery has been used for the non-medical treatment of severe emphysema. However, in recent years, bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (LVR) treatment has become more preferred because it is less invasive. Bronchoscopic coil treatment is the most frequently applied technique among these methods. The aim of the investigation was to determine the efficacy and safety of bronchoscopic volume reduction coil treatment for patients with severe emphysema.

Methods

The patients who were performed bronchial volume reduction coil treatment between 2015 and 2017 and were followed in our outpatient clinic were retrospectively examined. They were followed for 1 year at quarterly intervals after the procedure. All the safety and efficacy of the patient's records, including the modified Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnea score, the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) quality of life scale, the 6 min walk distance (6-MWT), pulmonary function tests, and adverse events, were evaluated.

Results

Sixteen patients were included in the study. The mean of the preoperative mMRC clinic dyspnea score was 3.38, the mean of the 3rd month's mMRC score was 2.62 (p=0.007), and the mean of the 12th month's mMRC was 2.37 (p=0.003). The preoperative SGRQ quality of life parameter was 71.95±15.7, the 3rd month was 66.7±16.2 (p=0.007), and the 12th month was 62.9±16.4 (p=0.003). Preoperative mean of 6-MWT was 247.25±112.36 m, 3rd month 264.25±95 m (p=0.148), and 12th month 317±122.9 m (p=0.034). Patients' preoperative residual volume was 5.28±1.96 L, 3rd month 4.52±1.35 L (p=0.023), and 12th month 4.545±1.83 L (p=0.163). Patients' preoperative forced expiratory volume in one second, respectively, was 0.79±0.29 L, 3rd month 0.79±0.3 L (p=0.917), and 12th month 0.86±0.3 L (p=0.756).

Conclusion

It seems that bronchoscopic LVR coil treatment, which is an effective and reliable procedure that reduces shortness of breath rather than respiratory function test parameters and improves the quality of daily life, will become even more widespread.

Bronchoscopic Management of COPD and Advances in Therapy

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a highly prevalent and morbid disease marked by irreversible structural changes in the lungs. Bronchoscopic therapies have significantly expanded the treatment armamentarium for patients with persistent symptoms by reducing the physiologic detriments of hyperinflation in a less invasive fashion than surgical lung volume reduction. The spectrum of bronchoscopic techniques to reduce hyperinflation includes endobronchial valves, coils, thermal ablation, and biologic sealants. Other therapies focus on reducing parasympathetic tone and mucus hypersecretion and include targeted lung denervation, bronchial rheoplasty, and cryospray techniques. In this article, we will review the variety of techniques for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction, both established and investigational, along with their respective benefits and complications and will briefly review other investigational therapies for COPD.

Which Endoscopic Procedure to Use and in What Patient? Valves, Coils, Foam, and Heat in COPD and Asthma

Despite the latest developments in therapeutic agents targeting airway endotypes, a significant proportion of patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remain symptomatic. Endoscopic therapies have a complementary role in the management of these airway diseases. The sustained efficacy of bronchial thermoplasty (BT) among patients with asthma over 10 years has been encouraging, as it has been shown to improve symptom control and reduce hospital admissions and exacerbations. Studies suggest that BT helps ameliorate airway inflammation and reduce airway smooth muscle thickness. While studies suggest that it is as effective as biologic agents, its role in the management of severe asthma has yet to be clearly defined and GINA 2022 still suggests limiting its use to patients with characteristics of the various populations studied. Conversely, bronchoscopic lung volume reduction has shown promise among patients with advanced COPD. Rigorous patient selection is important. Patients with minimal collateral ventilation (CV) and higher heterogeneity index have shown to benefit the most from endobronchial valve (EBV) therapy. For those with ongoing CV, endobronchial coils would be more appropriate. Both therapeutic modalities have demonstrated improved quality of life, effort tolerance, and lung function indices among appropriately selected patients. The emerging evidence suggests that endoscopic procedures among airway disease still have a substantial role to play despite the development of new therapeutic options.

Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction for Emphysema: Review and Update

In carefully selected patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, characterized by emphysema and hyperinflation, lung volume reduction is an option to reduce lung hyperinflation, improve lung function, quality of life, and exercise capacity. Currently, there are several bronchoscopic and surgical treatment options to achieve lung volume reduction. It is important to carefully phenotype these patients, to select the optimal treatment option, with consideration of possible adverse events or contraindications, and it is highly recommended to discuss these treatment strategies in a multidisciplinary team. The treatment with one-way endobronchial valves has been investigated most extensively and more data are available regarding the treatment of more "marginal cases," or subsequent lung volume reduction surgery. Other bronchoscopic lung volume reduction options include treatment with coils, thermal vapor ablation, and sclerosant agents. In this review, we aim to summarize the current clinical evidence on the bronchoscopic lung volume reduction therapies and important aspects regarding optimal patient selection.

Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction Coil Treatment for Severe Emphysema: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data

Background

Lung volume reduction coil (LVR-coil) treatment provides a minimally invasive treatment option for severe emphysema patients which has been studied in multiple clinical trials.

Objectives

The aim of the study was to assess the effect of LVR-coil treatment on pulmonary function, quality of life, and exercise capacity using individual participant data.

Method

PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched until May 17, 2021. Prospective single-arm and randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of LVR-coil treatment on forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), residual volume (RV), St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and/or 6-min walk distance (6MWD) and were registered in an official clinical trial database were eligible for inclusion. Individual patient data were requested, and a linear mixed effects model was used to calculate overall treatment effects.

Results

Eight trials were included in the final analysis, representing 680 individual patients. LVR-coil treatment resulted in a significant improvement in FEV1 at 3- (0.09 L [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.06–0.12]) and 6-month follow-up (0.07 L [95% CI: 0.03–0.10]), a significant reduction in RV at 3- (−0.45L [95% CI: −0.62 to −0.28]), 6- (−0.33L [95% CI: −0.52 to −0.14]), and 12-month follow-up (−0.36L [95% CI: −0.64 to −0.08]), a significant reduction in SGRQ total score at 3- (−12.3 points [95% CI: −15.8 to −8.8]), 6- (−10.1 points [95% CI: −12.8 to −7.3]), and 12-month follow-up (−9.8 points [95% CI: −15.0 to −4.7]) and a significant increase in 6MWD at 3-month follow-up (38 m [95% CI: 18–58]).

Conclusions

LVR-coil treatment in emphysema patients results in sustained improvements in pulmonary function and quality of life and shorter lived improvements in exercise capacity. Since the owner of this LVR-coil has decided to stop the production and newer generations LVR-coils are currently being developed, these results can act as a reference for future studies and clinical guidance.

Airway granulation response to lung-implantable medical devices: a concise overview

Increasing numbers of endoscopically implantable devices are implanted in the airways, such as airway stents, one-way valves and coils, to treat both malignant and benign diseases. They significantly improve patient outcomes, but their long-term effectiveness and sustainability is hampered by the reaction of the formation of granulation tissue. Factors including procedural-related tissue injury; micro-organism presence; device-related factors, such as the material, design and sizing in relation to the airway; and patient-related factors, including genetic susceptibility, comorbidities and medication use, might all effect the severity of the tissue response and the subsequent degree of granulation tissue formation. However, research into the underlying mechanism and risk factors is scarce and therefore our knowledge is limited. Joint efforts from the scientific community, both pre-clinical and clinical, are needed to gain a deeper understanding and eventually improve the long-term treatment effectiveness of lung-implantable devices.

Medical implantable devices are increasingly used in pulmonary medicine. Complications related to the tissue–device interaction are often present, but our knowledge of the underlying processes is limited.https://bit.ly/2RdWVkG

Endobronchial Coil System versus Standard-of-Care Medical Management in the Treatment of Subjects with Severe Emphysema

BACKGROUND

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction using endobronchial coils is a new treatment for patients with severe emphysema. To date, the benefits have been modest and have been suggested to be much larger in patients with severe hyperinflation and nonmulti-comorbidity.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endobronchial coil treatment in a randomized multicenter clinical trial using optimized patient selection.

METHOD

Patients with severe emphysema on HRCT scan with severe hyperinflation (residual volume [RV] ≥200% predicted and RV/total lung capacity [TLC] >55%) were randomized to coil treatment or control. Primary outcome measures were differences in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at 6 months.

RESULTS

Due to premature study termination, a total of 120 patients (age 63 ± 7 years, FEV1 29 ± 7% predicted, RV 251 ± 41% predicted, RV/TLC 67 ± 6%, and SGRQ 58 ± 13 points), instead of 210 patients, were randomized. At study termination, 91 patients (57 coil and 34 control) had 6-month results available. Analyses showed significantly greater improvements in favor of the coil group. The increase in FEV1 was greater in the coil group than that in the control group by + 10.3 [+4.7 to +16.0] % and in SGRQ by -10.6 [-15.9 to -5.4] points. At study termination, there were 5 (6.8%) deaths in the coil cohort reported.

CONCLUSION

Despite early study termination, coil treatment compared to control results in a significant improvement in the lung function and quality of life benefits for up to 6 months in patients with emphysema and severe hyperinflation. These improvements were of clinical importance but were associated with a higher likelihood of serious adverse events.

Identifying Responders and Exploring Mechanisms of Action of the Endobronchial Coil Treatment for Emphysema

BACKGROUND

So far, 3 randomized controlled trials have shown that the endobronchial treatment using coils is safe and effective. However, the more exact underlying mechanism of the treatment and best predictors of response are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to gain more knowledge about the underlying physiological mechanism of the lung volume reduction coil treatment and to identify potential predictors of response to this treatment.

METHODS

This was a prospective nonrandomized single-center study which included patients who were bilaterally treated with coils. Patients underwent an extensive number of physical tests at baseline and 3 months after treatment.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients (29% male, mean age 62 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] 26% pred, residual volume (RV) 231% pred) were included. Three months after treatment, significant improvements were found in spirometry, static hyperinflation, air trapping, airway resistance, treated lobe RV and treated lobes air trapping measured on CT scan, exercise capacity, and quality of life. The change in RV and airway resistance was significantly associated with a change in FEV1, forced vital capacity, air trapping, maximal expiratory pressure, dynamic compliance, and dynamic hyperinflation. Predictors of treatment response at baseline were a higher RV, larger air trapping, higher emphysema score in the treated lobes, and a lower physical activity level.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that emphysema patients benefit from endobronchial coil treatment. The primary mechanism of action is decreasing static hyperinflation with improvement of airway resistance which consequently changes dynamic lung mechanics. However, the right patient population needs to be selected for the treatment to be beneficial which should include patients with severe lung hyperinflation, severe air trapping, and significant emphysema in target lobes.

HRCT characteristics of severe emphysema patients: Interobserver variability among expert readers and comparison with quantitative software

PURPOSE

For a successful bronchoscopic lung volume reduction coil treatment it is important to place the coils in the most emphysematous lobes. Therefore assessment of the lobe with greatest destruction is essential. Our aims were to investigate the level of agreement among expert reviewers of HRCT-scans in emphysema patients and the comparison with QCT (quantitative computed tomography) software.

METHOD

Five experienced CT-assessors, conducted a visual assessment of the baseline HRCT-scans of emphysema patients who participated in the RENEW bronchoscopic lung volume reduction coil study. On the same HRCT-scans, a QCT analysis was performed.

RESULTS

In total 134 HRCT-scans were rated by all 5 experts. All 5 CT-assessors agreed on which was the most destructed lobe in 61 % of the left lungs (ƙ:0.459) and 60 % of the right lungs (ƙ:0.370). The consensus of the 5 assessors matched the QCT in the left lung for 77 % of the patients (ƙ:0.425) and in the right lung for 82 % (ƙ:0.524).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the interobserver agreement between five expert CT-assessors was only fair to moderate when evaluating the most destructed lobe. CT-assessor consensus improved matching with QCT determination of lobar destruction compared to individual assessor determinations. Because some CT-features are associated with treatment outcomes and important for optimal patient selection of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction treatment, we recommend including more than one CT-reviewer and supported by QCT measurements.

Effects of endobronchial coils for endoscopic lung volume reduction on sleep in COPD patients with advanced pulmonary emphysema

PURPOSE

Treatment of advanced pulmonary emphysema with endobronchial coils can improve clinical outcomes like quality of life (QOL). Yet, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are also known to suffer from reduced sleep quality. The effect of coil therapy on sleep has not yet been investigated. The primary aim of this study was to investigate sleep efficiency before and after coil treatment. Secondly, we investigated the effects on nocturnal breathing pattern, QOL, and physical activity.

METHODS

Polysomnography (PSG) testing was performed before (T0), 6 month after (T3), and 12 months after (T4) treatment with endobronchial coils. Further examinations included QOL by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and COPD assessment test (CAT), and physical activity using an accelerometer for 1 week after each visit.

RESULTS

Of 21 patients, 14 completed the study: 6 women; mean age 58.0 ± 4.9 years; BMI 22.6 ± 4.6 kg/m²; FEV₁ 28.6 ± 7.1% predicted; residual volume (RV) 278.2 ± 49.4% predicted. Sleep efficiency did not vary between baseline and follow-up examinations (T0 69.0 ± 15.8%; T3 70.9 ± 16.0%; T4 66.8 ± 18.9%). Non-REM respiratory rate decreased compared to baseline (T0 19.4 ± 3.9/min; T3 17.8 ± 3.5/min; T4 17.1 ± 3.1/min (p = 0.041; p = 0.030) and QOL improved meeting the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) (SGRQ, T3 -12.8 units; T4 -7.1 units; CAT: T3 -5.6 units; T4 -3.4 units). No increase in physical activity was recorded (light activity T0 31.9 ± 9.9; T3 30.8 ± 16.9; T4 26.3 ± 10.6 h/week).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with endobronchial coils did not influence objectively measured sleep quality or physical activity, but reduced nocturnal breathing frequency and improved QOL in severe emphysema patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02399514, First Posted: March 26, 2015.

Endobronchial coils for emphysema: Dual mechanism of action on lobar residual volume reduction

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The RENEW trial demonstrated that bronchoscopic lung volume reduction using endobronchial coils improves quality of life, pulmonary function and exercise performance. In this post hoc analysis of RENEW, we examine the mechanism of action of endobronchial coils that drives improvement in clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 78 patients from the RENEW coil-treated group who were treated in one or both lobes that were deemed as the most destroyed were included in this retrospective analysis. Expiratory and inspiratory HRCT scans were used to assess lobar volume change from baseline to 12 months post coil treatment in treated and untreated lobes.

RESULTS

Reduction in lobar RV in treated lobes was significantly associated with favourable clinical improvement. Independent predictor of the change in RV and FEV₁ was the change in lobar RV reduction in the treated lobes and for change in 6MWD the absence of cardiac disease and the change in SGRQ, while the independent predictor of change in SGRQ was the change in 6MWD.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that residual lobar volume reduction in treated lobes measured by QCT is the driving mechanism of action of endobronchial coils leading to positive clinical outcomes. However, the improvement in exercise capacity and quality of life seems to be affected by the presence of cardiac disease.