Proactive Recruitment Strategy for Patient Identification for Lung Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: We assessed low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer using a proactive patient education/recruitment program. METHODS: We identified patients aged 55-80 years from a family medicine group. In the retrospective phase (March-August, 2019), patients were categorized as current/former/never smokers, and screening eligibility was determined. Patients who underwent LDCT in the past year, along with outcomes, were documented. In the prospective phase (2020), patients in the same cohort who did not undergo LDCT were proactively contacted by a nurse navigator to discuss eligibility and prescreening. Eligible and willing patients were referred to their primary care physician. RESULTS: In the retrospective phase, of 451 current/former smokers, 184 (40.8%) were eligible for LDCT, 104 (23.1%) were ineligible, and 163 (36.1%) had an incomplete smoking history. Of those eligible, 34 (18.5%) had LDCT ordered. In the prospective phase, 189 (41.9%) were eligible for LDCT (150 [79.4%] of whom had no prior LDCT or diagnostic CT), 106 (23.5%) were ineligible, and 156 (34.6%) had an incomplete smoking history. The nurse navigator identified an additional 56/451 (12.4%) patients as eligible after contacting patients with incomplete smoking history. In total, 206 patients (45.7%) were eligible, an increase of 37.3% compared with the retrospective phase (150). Of these, 122 (59.2%) verbally agreed to screening, 94 (45.6%) met with their physician, and 42 (20.4%) were prescribed LDCT. CONCLUSIONS: A proactive education/recruitment model increased eligible patients for LDCT by 37.3%. Proactive identification/education of patients desiring to pursue LDCT was 59.2%. It is essential to identify strategies that will increase and deliver LDCT screening among eligible and willing patients.

Pulmonary Hypertension: A Contraindication for Lung Volume Reduction Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Historically, pulmonary hypertension (PH) has been considered as one of the contraindications for lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS). Newer studies have shown that LVRS is successful in select emphysema patients with PH. METHODS: In-hospital and 1-year functional and quality of life (QOL) outcomes were studied in patients with PH post-LVRS. PH was defined as pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) exceeding 35 mm Hg by right heart catheterization (RHC), where available, or else exceeding 35 mm Hg by echocardiogram. RESULTS: Of 124 patients who underwent LVRS, 56 (45%) had PH (mean PAP, 41 mm Hg) with 48 mild to moderate and 8 severe PH. In-hospital outcomes were similar between patients with and without PH: hours of artificial ventilation (1.8 vs 0.06, P = .882), days in intensive care (4 vs 6, P = .263), prolonged air leak (12% vs 19%, P = .402), and days of hospital stay (13 vs 16, P = .072). Lung function improved significantly at the 1-year follow-up in patients with PH: forced expiratory volume in 1 second % predicted (26 vs 38, P = .001), forced vital capacity % (62 vs 90, P = .001), residual volume % predicted (224 vs 174, P = .001), diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide % predicted (36 vs 43, P = .001), 6-minute walk distance test (1104 vs 1232 feet, P = .001), and QOL utility scores (0.67 vs 0.77, P = .001). There were no differences in in-hospital, baseline, and follow-up functional and QOL outcomes between patients with and without PH. CONCLUSIONS: In this small, single-institution cohort, outcomes of patients undergoing LVRS for emphysema with PH were similar to those of patients without PH. LVRS may be a potential option for select emphysema patients with PH.

The Expressions of Hope in the Face of Complex Surgery: Experiences of Patients and Their Loved Ones.

BACKGROUND: Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), a reduction in damaged lung tissue in end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, is a breakthrough surgical procedure requiring months of rigorous screening, testing, and conditioning. Engaging in this process is prolonged and challenging with no research found exploring patients and loved ones' experiences through this demanding process. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to examine the experience of LVRS for patients and loved ones as they encounter the complex preparation required prior to, during, and throughout the extended convalescence following surgery. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used, combining health outcomes with interview data. Participants and loved ones were purposefully selected, invited, and consented during the perioperative phase of LVRS. Quantitative data were obtained via chart review, while qualitative data were gathered through a 2-stage interview process, preoperatively and postoperatively. Qualitative data were analyzed using naturalistic inquiry approaches. RESULTS: Patients and loved ones described difficulties of living with illness during the preoperative phase, and expressed relief and joy for an improved quality of life afterward. The overarching theme uncovered was hope. Preoperatively, hope was coupled with anxiety about the upcoming surgery and potential outcomes, whereas the hope expressed after surgery focused on the future, in particular, a shared future. Statistically significant differences were found in the quality of life measures. CONCLUSION: For both patients and loved ones, LVRS is filled with hope for a more expansive future. Although that future is unclear prior to surgery, clarification and a new normal signals hope for a shared future following LVRS.