Outcomes after unilateral lung volume reduction.

BACKGROUND: For patients with end-stage emphysema undergoing lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), we have preferred a bilateral (BLVRS) approach to achieve maximum benefit with a single procedure. A unilateral (ULVRS) approach has been used in certain patients in whom BLVRS is contraindicated. METHODS: Between January 1993 and December 2006, 43 consecutive patients underwent ULVRS. The study excluded patients undergoing giant bullectomy. Relative contraindications for BLVRS were unilateral emphysema, 21; unilateral emphysema plus other factors, 2; and other factors alone, 10. Preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation was required. Postrehabilitation data were used as the baseline for analyses. Outcome measurements for ULVRS were compared with BLVRS results. RESULTS: After ULVRS, the mean increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) from postrehabilitation values was 32% at 6 months (p

Lung cancer resection combined with lung volume reduction in patients with severe emphysema.

OBJECTIVE: Certain patients with resectable lung cancer and severe respiratory limitation due to emphysema may have a suitable operative risk by combining cancer resection with lung volume reduction surgery. The purpose of this study is to review our experience with such patients. METHODS: A review was conducted on 21 patients with lung cancer in the setting of severe emphysema who underwent an operation designed to provide complete cancer resection and volume reduction effect. RESULTS: In the 21 patients, the mean preoperative forced expiratory volume in 1 second was 0.7 +/- 0.2 L (29% predicted), residual volume was 5.5 +/- 1.0 L (271%), and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide was 8.0 +/- 2.2 mL/min/mm Hg (34% predicted). In 9 patients, the cancer was located in a severely emphysematous lobe and the lung volume reduction surgery component of the procedure was accomplished with lobectomy alone. In the remaining 12 patients, the cancer resection lobectomy (n = 9) and wedge resection (n = 3) were supplemented with lung volume reduction surgery. Final pathologic staging was stage I in 16 patients, stage II in 2 patients, and stage III in 2 patients. One patient was found to have stage IV disease due to multifocal tumors in separate lobes. There were no hospital deaths. Postoperative complications included prolonged air leak in 11 patients, atrial fibrillation in 6 patients, and reintubation for ventilatory assistance in 2 patients. All patients showed improved lung function postoperatively. Survival was 100% and 62.7% at 1 and 5 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe emphysema and resectable lung cancer who have a favorable anatomy for lung volume reduction surgery may undergo a combined cancer resection and lung volume reduction surgery with an acceptable risk and good long-term survival.

Results of lung volume reduction surgery in patients meeting a national emphysema treatment trial high-risk criterion.

OBJECTIVES: A report from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial indicated that lung volume reduction candidates with a forced expiratory volume in 1 second and a diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide of 20% or less of predicted value were at high risk for mortality and were unlikely to benefit from surgical intervention. This article examines the applicability of the National Emphysema Treatment Trial findings to our own patients. METHODS: We reviewed 280 patients who underwent bilateral lung volume reduction surgery at our institution between January 1993 and December 2001. All patients met our selection criteria, including heterogeneous distribution of emphysema. Of these 280 patients, 20 patients had both a preoperative forced expiratory volume in 1 second and a diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide of less than or equal to 20% of the predicted normal values, thus meeting one National Emphysema Treatment Trial criterion for high risk. Outcomes of the 20 patients were assessed through 5 years after the operation. The survival of the 20 patient cohort was compared with that of the 260 patients not meeting the National Emphysema Treatment Trial high-risk criterion. RESULTS: Ninety-day operative mortality included 1 (5%) patient. In all patients the forced expiratory volume in 1 second increased from 0.46 L (17%) to 0.78 L (32%), a 73% change; the diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide increased from 16% to 27%, a 70% improvement; residual volume decreased from 6.33 L (305%) to 4.26 L (205%), a 33% improvement; and room air arterial partial pressure of oxygen increased from 55 mm Hg to 64 mm Hg. Kaplan-Meier 5-year survivals did not differ between the high-risk and non-high-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a forced expiratory volume in 1 second and a diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide of 20% or less of predicted value might experience improvements in lung function, exercise tolerance, and quality of life with acceptable morbidity and mortality after lung volume reduction surgery.

A prospective evaluation of lung volume reduction surgery in 200 consecutive patients.

OBJECTIVES: Though numerous studies have demonstrated the short-term efficacy of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) in select patients with emphysema, the longer-term follow-up studies are just being reported. The primary objectives of this study were to assess long-term health-related quality of life, satisfaction, physiologic status, and survival of patients following LVRS. DESIGN: We used a prospective cohort study design to assess the first 200 patients undergoing bilateral LVRS (from 1993 to 1998), with follow-up through the year 2000. Each patient served as his own control, initially receiving optimal medical management including exercise rehabilitation before undergoing surgery. Preoperative postrehabilitation data were used as the baseline for comparisons with postoperative data. The primary end points were the effects of LVRS on dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea sale), general health-related quality of life (Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-36]), patient satisfaction, and survival. The secondary end points were the effects of LVRS on pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and supplemental oxygen requirements. SETTING: A tertiary care urban university-based referral center. PATIENTS: Eligibility requirements for LVRS included disabling dyspnea due to marked airflow obstruction, thoracic hyperinflation, and heterogeneously distributed emphysema that provided target areas for resection. Patients were assessed at 6 months, 3 years, and 5 years after surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation and bilateral stapling LVRS. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The 200 patients accrued 735 person-years (mean +/- SD, 3.7 +/- 1.6 years; median, 4.0 years) of follow-up. Over the three follow-up periods, an average of > 90% of evaluable patients completed testing. Six months, 3 years, and 5 years after surgery, dyspnea scores were improved in 81%, 52%, and 40% of patients, respectively. Dyspnea scores were the same or improved in 96% (6 months), 82% (3 years), and 74% (5 years) of patients. Improvements in SF-36 physical functioning were demonstrated in 93% (6 months), 78% (3 years), and 69% (5 years) of patients. Good-to-excellent satisfaction with the outcomes was reported by 96% (6 months), 89% (3 years), and 77% (5 years) of patients. The FEV(1) was improved in 92% (6 months), 72% (3 years), and 58% (5 years) of patients. Changes in dyspnea and general health-related quality-of-life scores, and patient satisfaction scores were all significantly correlated with changes in FEV(1). Following surgery, the median length of hospital stay in survivors was 9 days. The 90-day postoperative mortality was 4.5%. Annual Kaplan-Meier survival through 5 years after surgery was 93%, 88%, 83%, 74%, and 63%, respectively. During follow-up, 15 patients underwent subsequent lung transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: In stringently selected patients, LVRS resulted in substantial beneficial effects over and above those achieved with optimized medical therapy. The duration of improvement was at least 5 years in the majority of survivors.

Long-term outcome of bilateral lung volume reduction in 250 consecutive patients with emphysema.

OBJECTIVE: Numerous reports have confirmed the early benefits of lung volume reduction surgery for selected patients with emphysema. This report documents the long-term survival and functional results after lung volume reduction surgery. METHODS: Between January 1993 and June 2000, a total of 250 consecutive patients underwent bilateral lung volume reduction surgery through median sternotomy at our institution. All patients had disabling dyspnea, thoracic hyperinflation, and a heterogeneous pattern of emphysema with suitable target areas for resection. Preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation was required and post-rehabilitation data were used as the baseline for data analysis. Follow-up ranged from 1.8 to 9.1 years (median 4.4 years). RESULTS: Prolonged air leaks (>7 days) were the most common complication (45.2%, n = 113). Reexploration rates for air leak and bleeding were 3.2% (n = 8) and 1.2% (n = 3), respectively. Eighteen patients (7.2%) required reintubation and mechanical ventilation. The in-hospital mortality in this series was 4.8% (n = 12). The median length of hospitalization was 9 days (range 4-168 days). Kaplan-Meier survivals after lung volume reduction surgery were 93.6%, 84.4%, and 67.7% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Eighteen patients (7.2%) have subsequently undergone lung transplantation after a median interval of 4.3 years (range 2.1-6.4 years). Spirometric values, lung volumes, and gas exchange parameters improved after surgery. The forced expiratory volume in 1 second and the residual volume showed statistically significant improvements between preoperative values and each time point of follow-up. Health-related quality of life showed significant postoperative improvement and with time correlated well with the improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second. CONCLUSIONS: Lung volume reduction surgery produces significant functional improvement for selected patients with emphysema. For most of these patients, benefits appear to last at least 5 years.