Cargando…

Interventional therapy in patients with severe emphysema: evaluation of contraindications and their incidence

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Polke, Markus, Rötting, Matthias, Sarmand, Nilab, Krisam, Johannes, Eberhardt, Ralf, Herth, Felix J.F., Gompelmann, Daniela
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6421604/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30874483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1753466619835494
_version_ 1783404256951271424
author Polke, Markus
Rötting, Matthias
Sarmand, Nilab
Krisam, Johannes
Eberhardt, Ralf
Herth, Felix J.F.
Gompelmann, Daniela
author_facet Polke, Markus
Rötting, Matthias
Sarmand, Nilab
Krisam, Johannes
Eberhardt, Ralf
Herth, Felix J.F.
Gompelmann, Daniela
author_sort Polke, Markus
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6421604
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64216042019-03-22 Interventional therapy in patients with severe emphysema: evaluation of contraindications and their incidence Polke, Markus Rötting, Matthias Sarmand, Nilab Krisam, Johannes Eberhardt, Ralf Herth, Felix J.F. Gompelmann, Daniela Ther Adv Respir Dis Original Research 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. SAGE Publications 2019-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6421604/ /pubmed/30874483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1753466619835494 Text en © The Author(s), 2019 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
Polke, Markus
Rötting, Matthias
Sarmand, Nilab
Krisam, Johannes
Eberhardt, Ralf
Herth, Felix J.F.
Gompelmann, Daniela
Interventional therapy in patients with severe emphysema: evaluation of contraindications and their incidence
title Interventional therapy in patients with severe emphysema: evaluation of contraindications and their incidence
title_full Interventional therapy in patients with severe emphysema: evaluation of contraindications and their incidence
title_fullStr Interventional therapy in patients with severe emphysema: evaluation of contraindications and their incidence
title_full_unstemmed Interventional therapy in patients with severe emphysema: evaluation of contraindications and their incidence
title_short Interventional therapy in patients with severe emphysema: evaluation of contraindications and their incidence
title_sort interventional therapy in patients with severe emphysema: evaluation of contraindications and their incidence
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6421604/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30874483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1753466619835494
work_keys_str_mv AT polkemarkus interventionaltherapyinpatientswithsevereemphysemaevaluationofcontraindicationsandtheirincidence
AT rottingmatthias interventionaltherapyinpatientswithsevereemphysemaevaluationofcontraindicationsandtheirincidence
AT sarmandnilab interventionaltherapyinpatientswithsevereemphysemaevaluationofcontraindicationsandtheirincidence
AT krisamjohannes interventionaltherapyinpatientswithsevereemphysemaevaluationofcontraindicationsandtheirincidence
AT eberhardtralf interventionaltherapyinpatientswithsevereemphysemaevaluationofcontraindicationsandtheirincidence
AT herthfelixjf interventionaltherapyinpatientswithsevereemphysemaevaluationofcontraindicationsandtheirincidence
AT gompelmanndaniela interventionaltherapyinpatientswithsevereemphysemaevaluationofcontraindicationsandtheirincidence