Interventional therapy in patients with severe emphysema: evaluation of contraindications and their incidence. (March 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Polke, Markus; Rötting, Matthias; Sarmand, Nilab; Krisam, Johannes; Eberhardt, Ralf; Herth, Felix J.F.; Gompelmann, Daniela
• Is Part Of: Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease. Volume 13(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-03
• Subjects: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease -- emphysema -- endoscopic lung volume reduction; Respiratory organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Respiratory agents -- Periodicals; Pulmonary pharmacology -- Periodicals; Respiratory Tract Diseases -- Periodicals; Respiratory System Agents -- therapeutic use -- Periodicals; Respiratory Tract Diseases -- drug therapy -- Periodicals; Lung Diseases -- drug therapy -- Periodicals; Appareil respiratoire -- Maladies -- Traitement -- Périodiques; Agents respiratoires -- Périodiques; Pharmacologie pulmonaire -- Périodiques; 616.2005
• DOI: 10.1177/1753466619835494
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1753-4658

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic and surgical interventions may be beneficial for selected patients with emphysema. Rates of treatment failure decrease when the predictors for successful therapy are known. The aim of the study was to evaluate the number of patients with severe emphysema who were not eligible for any intervention, and the reasons for their exclusion. Methods: The study was a retrospective analysis of 231 consecutive patients with advanced emphysema who were considered for interventional therapy in 2016 at the Thoraxklinik, Heidelberg, Germany. The reasons for not receiving valve or coil therapy were assessed for all patients who did not receive any therapy. Results: Of the 231 patients, 50% received an interventional therapy for lung volume reduction (LVR) (82% valve therapy, 6% coil therapy, 4.3% polymeric LVR or bronchial thermal vapour ablation, 4.3% total lung denervation, and 3.4% lung volume reduction surgery [LVRS]). A total of 115 patients did not undergo LVR. Out of these, valve or coil therapy was not performed due to one or more of the following reasons: incomplete fissure in 37% and 0%; missing target lobe in 31% and 30%; personal decision in 18% and 28%; pulmonary function test results in 8% and 15%; ventilatory failure in 4% and 4%; missing optimal standard medical care and/or continued nicotine abuse in 4% and 3%; general condition too good in less than 1% and 3%; cardiovascular comorbidities in 0% and 3%; age of patient in 0% and less than 1%. Both techniques were not performed due to one or more of the following reasons: solitary pulmonary nodule(s)/consolidation in 27%; bronchopathy in 7%; neoplasia in 2%; destroyed lung in 2%; prior LVRS in less than 1%. Conclusions: The main reason for not placing valves was an incomplete fissure and for coils a missing target lobe. Numerous additional contraindications that may exclude a patient from interventional emphysema therapy should be respected.