Abstract
OBJECTIVES
Lung volume reduction (LVR) is an efficient and approved treatment for selected emphysema patients. There is some evidence that repeated LVR surgery (LVRS) might be beneficial, but there are no current data on LVRS after unsuccessful bronchoscopic LVR (BLVR) with endobronchial valves (EBVs). We hypothesize good outcome of LVRS after BLVR with valves.
METHODS
In this study, we retrospectively investigated all patients who underwent LVRS between 2015 and 2019 at 2 centres after previous unsuccessful EBV treatment. They were further divided into subgroups with patients who never achieved the intended improvement after BLVR (primary failure) and patients whose benefit was fading over time due to the natural development of emphysema (secondary failure). Patients with severe air leak after BLVR and immediate concomitant LVRS and fistula closure thereafter were analysed separately.
RESULTS
A total of 38 patients were included. Of these, 19 patients had primary failure, 15 secondary failure and 4 were treated as an emergency due to severe air leak. At 3 months after LVRS, forced expiratory volume in 1 s had improved significantly by 12.5% (P = 0.011) and there was no 90-day mortality. Considering subgroups, patients with primary failure after BLVR seem to profit more than those with secondary failure. Patients with severe air leak after BLVR did not profit from fistula closure with concomitant LVRS.
CONCLUSIONS
LVRS after previous BLVR with EBVs can provide significant clinical improvement with low morbidity, although results might not be as good as after primary LVRS.
Lung volume reduction (LVR) is an efficient and approved treatment for selected emphysema patients. There is some evidence that repeated LVR surgery (LVRS) might be beneficial, but there are no current data on LVRS after unsuccessful bronchoscopic LVR (BLVR) with endobronchial valves (EBVs). We hypothesize good outcome of LVRS after BLVR with valves.
METHODS
In this study, we retrospectively investigated all patients who underwent LVRS between 2015 and 2019 at 2 centres after previous unsuccessful EBV treatment. They were further divided into subgroups with patients who never achieved the intended improvement after BLVR (primary failure) and patients whose benefit was fading over time due to the natural development of emphysema (secondary failure). Patients with severe air leak after BLVR and immediate concomitant LVRS and fistula closure thereafter were analysed separately.
RESULTS
A total of 38 patients were included. Of these, 19 patients had primary failure, 15 secondary failure and 4 were treated as an emergency due to severe air leak. At 3 months after LVRS, forced expiratory volume in 1 s had improved significantly by 12.5% (P = 0.011) and there was no 90-day mortality. Considering subgroups, patients with primary failure after BLVR seem to profit more than those with secondary failure. Patients with severe air leak after BLVR did not profit from fistula closure with concomitant LVRS.
CONCLUSIONS
LVRS after previous BLVR with EBVs can provide significant clinical improvement with low morbidity, although results might not be as good as after primary LVRS.
Originalsprog | Engelsk |
---|---|
Tidsskrift | Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery |
Vol/bind | 32 |
Udgave nummer | 2 |
Sider (fra-til) | 263-269 |
Antal sider | 7 |
ISSN | 1569-9293 |
DOI | |
Status | Udgivet - 22 jan. 2021 |