Individualised risk in patients undergoing lung volume reduction surgery: the Glenfield BFG score.

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has been shown to be beneficial in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but there is low uptake, partly due to perceived concerns of high operative mortality. We aimed to develop an individualised risk score following LVRS.This was a cohort study of patients undergoing LVRS. Factors independently predicting 90-day mortality and a risk prediction score were identified. Reliability of the score was tested using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).237 LVRS procedures were performed. The multivariate analysis factors associated independently with death were: body mass index (BMI)<18.5 kg·m-2 (OR 2.83, p=0.059), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)<0.71 L (OR 5.47, p=0.011) and transfer factor of the lung for carbon monoxide (TLCO) <20% (OR 5.56, p=0.031). A risk score was calculated and total score assigned. AUROC for the risk score was 0.80 and a better predictor than individual components (p<0.01). The score was stratified into three risk groups. Of the total patients, 46% were classified as low risk. Similar improvements in lung function and health status were seen in all groups. The score was introduced and tested in a further 71 patients. AUROC for 90-day mortality in this cohort was 0.84.It is possible to provide an individualised predictive risk score for LVRS, which may aid decision making for both clinicians and patients.

Patient-directed Volume Reduction for Emphysema: Sequential Surgical and Endobronchial Techniques.

BACKGROUND: Lung volume reduction (LVR) surgery has traditionally been performed as a 1-stage bilateral procedure or staged at a predetermined interval. However to maximize the overall benefit we have allowed the patient to determine the timing of further interventions and have added endobronchial LVR into the protocol. We have reviewed the long-term outcome. METHODS: Three hundred thirty-one LVR procedures were performed on 254 patients (median age, 61 years [range, 23-79]) with baseline predicted lung function of (mean ± SD) forced expiratory volume in 1 second 28% ± 11% and residual volume 253% ± 53%. The initial procedure was by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in 236 patients (unilateral, 227; bilateral, 9), by open surgery in 5, and by endobronchial valve insertion in 13. Sixty-four patients received a second and 13 a third LVR procedure. The median time interval between first and third stage was 5.8 years (range, 1.9-10) RESULTS: In the subgroup of patients who underwent staged procedures there was a significant improvement in predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second from 28% at baseline to 34% up to 6 years. There was sustained reduction in static lung volumes up to 8 years: Predicted residual volume remained reduced from 259% to 189%. There were sustained improvements over baseline in health status: EuroQol-5D improved from 50 ± 26 to 62 ± 23 (P < .01) for up to 5 years and the Short Form 36-item questionnaire for up to 9 years. Overall 30-day mortality was 3%. Median survival was 5.6 years (95% confidence interval, 4.7-6.9). CONCLUSIONS: A program of staged unilateral procedures of LVR has resulted in sustained benefits for up to 9 years in physiology and health status.

Staged lung volume reduction surgery--rationale and experience.

The current convention is for bilateral one-stage lung volume reduction surgery. Unilateral surgery results in a symptomatic improvement in most patients. A staged approach to the second lung may reduce the risk of surgery and lead to a slower decline in physiologic improvement. The timing of the second operation can be influenced by the patient and the surgeon. The surgeon may be anxious to avoid the patient becoming inoperable because of excessive physiological decline or the patient succumbing to the inherent mortal risk of emphysema. The patient may be the best arbiter. The operation should be intended to improve his or her subjective assessment of health status; therefore, this parameter ultimately should determine the surgical schedule.

The role of the multidisciplinary emphysema team meeting in the provision of lung volume reduction.

Despite a positive result in favour of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), from one of the largest randomized controlled trial in thoracic surgery, the identification of poor outcome in certain high-risk groups has resulted in a worldwide decrease in its utilization. Patient selection is the key to successful lung volume reduction which, with the advent of a range of less invasive techniques, has become more complex. The greater variety of potential therapeutic options will inevitably lead to debate amongst treating clinicians. Therefore, to be able to make an informed decision on the best treatment for an individual patient, discussion between clinicians in a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting is advisable. The membership of this MDT must include all specialists involved in assessment and subsequent treatment of the patient including non-medical input. There must be robust administrative organization and record of decisions together with inter-disciplinary communication of decisions. Whilst ultimately it is the patient who will benefit from the MDT, individual participants will enhance their continued professional development. The referral pathway into the MDT must be clearly defined and disseminated. Which investigations are to be performed by referrers and which by the specialist centre need to be in an agreed protocol. Specialist input may be required to interpret the results of the latest assessment tools. The decision-making process of the MDT begins with confirmation of basic selection criteria but addresses three main areas of discussion: the definition of target areas of lung for reduction; the presence of collateral, interlobar ventilation and an assessment of individualized risk and benefit. The emphysema or lung volume reduction MDT has been established in several specialist units and its benefits include an increase in referrals overall for LVR. The establishment of an MDT approach to lung volume reduction has now been incorporated into several national guidelines.

A prospective analysis of the inter-relationship between lung volume reduction surgery and body mass index.

OBJECTIVES: LVRS is thought to result in significant improvements in BMI. Patients with a higher BMI at the time of diagnosis of COPD are known to have better survival, and those with a low BMI prior to LVRS have significantly worse perioperative morbidity. We aimed to assess the influence of BMI on the outcome of LVRS in our own experience. METHODS: Complete preoperative BMI data was available in 114 of 131 consecutive patients who have undergone LVRS since 1995. These patients were arbitrarily classified into three categories: underweight (BMI26 kg/m2). The in-hospital course and perioperative change in BMI at 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months were prospectively recorded for each category and compared. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in preoperative variables except BMI. There were significantly more postoperative ITU admissions among the lowest two BMI groups (12/29, 18/58 and 3/27 patients, respectively, p=0.02), and significantly shorter hospital stay in overweight patients [16 days (5-79) vs 18 days (6-111) vs 13 days (6-25), respectively, p=0.005, expressed as median (range)]. However, there was no difference in survival between the three groups (p=0.21). Postoperative physiological improvements in the first year were related to preoperative BMI for both FEV1 (r=0.29, p=0.02) and DLCO (r=0.33, p=0.02). Postoperative BMI significantly increased in the underweight yet significantly decreased in the overweight at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative course of LVRS and its physiological benefits are influenced by preoperative BMI. Whilst the treatment of the underweight is more complicated, LVRS may be the only way of increasing their BMI. Future work is needed to explore the roles of changing energy requirements and body composition following LVRS.

Is there a role for therapeutic lobectomy for emphysema?

OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of performing a standard lobectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and severe heterogeneous emphysema whose respiratory reserve is outside standard operability guidelines has been described [Edwards JG, Duthie DJR, Waller DA. Lobar volume reduction surgery: a method of increasing the lung cancer resection rate in patients with emphysema. Thorax 2001;56:791-5; Korst RJ, Ginsberg RJ, Ailawadi M, Bains MS, Downey RJ, Rusch V, Stover D. Lobectomy improves ventilatory function in selected patients with severe COPD. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:898-902; Carretta A, Zannini P, Puglisi A, Chiesa G, Vanzulli A, Bianchi A, Fumagalli A, Bianco S. Improvement in pulmonary function after lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer in emphysematous patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999;15(5):602-7]. Postoperative lung function was better than predicted, attributable to the therapeutic benefit of deflation of the hemithorax. Our aim was to determine whether the physiological benefits of this approach were superior to conventional non-anatomical lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) in similar patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of a single surgeon's experience identified 34 consecutive patients who underwent upper lobectomy for completely resected stage I-II NSCLC, and who had severe heterogeneous emphysema of apical distribution with a predicted postoperative FEV1 of less than 40%. Their perioperative characteristics, postoperative spirometry and survival of these cases were compared to 46 similar patients who underwent unilateral upper lobe LVRS during the same period. RESULTS: Data expressed as median (range). LVRS patients were significantly younger (59 years [39-70] vs 67 years [48-79] p<0.001), with more severe airflow obstruction (FEV(1) %pred 24 [12-60] vs 44 [17-54] p<0.001) and more heterogenous disease ('Q' score 4 [0.5-11.5] vs 7 [1-13] p=0.001) than the lobectomy group. No significant difference was found in median survival (88 vs 53 months, p=0.06). Lobectomy patients had a shorter air leak duration (5 days [2-36] vs 9 days [1-40], p=0.02) and hospital stay (8 days [3-63] vs 13 days [6-90] p=0.01). A significant correlation was found between pre-operative Q score and percentage improvement in FEV1 (r=-0.33, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Lobectomy for lung cancer in patients in severe heterogenous chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is associated with similar improvement in airflow obstruction as conventional LVRS, but is associated with a shorter postoperative course. Lobectomy may therefore offer a therapeutic alternative to conventional LVRS in a selected population.

Hybrid bilobectomy for treatment of an early-stage lung cancer in a patient with severe emphysema using the benefits of lung volume reduction.

Patients with resectable lung cancer and concomitant emphysema can fall outside the accepted guidelines for surgery. Lung volume reduction can improve their lung function but involves resecting an emphysematous lobe containing the tumour. Volume reduction can also be achieved by endobronchial one-way valve insertion, causing lobar collapse, but intact fissures are required. A 'hybrid bilobectomy' was performed on a 77-year-old ex-smoker with suspected T2aN0M0 bronchogenic carcinoma and severe pulmonary emphysema. The procedure consisted of endobronchial right lower lobe volume reduction and video-assisted middle lobectomy with stapled completion of the oblique fissure. Complete collapse of the right lower lobe was confirmed intraoperatively and on follow-up chest films. The recovery period was complicated by a prolonged air leak. We believe that concomitant endobronchial volume reduction of an ipsilateral lobe can facilitate video-assisted lobectomy in high-risk patients with severe emphysema. The success of endobronchial valves to achieve a hybrid bilobectomy is increased by stapled completion of fissure to prevent collateral ventilation.

Long-term survival and symptomatic relief in lower lobe lung volume reduction surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has been demonstrated to provide symptomatic relief and improve lung function in patients with end-stage emphysema. The National Emphysema Treatment Trial specifically noted functional benefits in patients with predominantly upper lobe emphysema and demonstrated improvement in quality-of-life parameters, in patients with non-upper lobe emphysema and a low-baseline exercise capacity. We aimed to investigate whether physiological and health status benefits correlated with lower lobe LVRS. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed from our prospectively collected patient database. A total of 36 patients with severe, non-upper lobe predominant emphysema underwent lower lobe LVRS in our institution, over a 20-year period. The assessments consisted of measurements of body mass index, pulmonary function tests and health-related quality of life using the Short Form 36-item questionnaires. RESULTS: Forced expiratory volume in 1 s was seen to improve 3 months [coefficient of time = 1.55 (0.88, 2.21); P < 0.0001] after the procedure, maintained until the first 6 months [0.48 (0.12, 0.85); P = 0.010], decline over the second half of the first year and gradually return to preoperative levels after 2 years, while residual volume to total lung capacity (%) ratio was seen to follow a similar pattern with significant decrease from baseline after 3 months [coefficient of time = -1.76 (-2.75, -0.76); P = 0.001] and 6 months [-1.05 (-1.51, -0.59); P < 0.0001]. Quality-of-life improvements were mainly noted in physical components. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to a widely held misconception following the National Emphysema Treatment Trial that lower lobe lung volume reduction does not offer significant benefits to patients with non-upper lobe predominant emphysema, we feel justified in offering lower lobe LVRS in these patients when they meet the same selection criteria as upper lobe LVRS.

Patient experience of lung volume reduction procedures for emphysema: a qualitative service improvement project.

The aim of this service improvement project was to gain understanding of the patient experience of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) and endobronchial valve (EBV) placement, from referral through to post-discharge care. Focus group interviews were carried out in two tertiary centres in London and Leicester, UK. Sixteen patients who had undergone lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), endobronchial valve (EBV) placement, or both, were recruited. Prior to participation in each focus group, participants completed a questionnaire to guide and focus discussion. Thematic analysis identified common themes to the participant experience of receiving lung volume reduction interventions. Themes included patient focus on declining health and the need to "fight" for a referral; consequences of having procedures and potential unexpected complications; and vulnerability post discharge and limited continuity of care. Participants were clear that the benefits of having had either LVRS or EBV procedures outweighed any difficulties experienced. Participants were keen to have further similar interventions if appropriate. These data confirm the need to develop more systematic lung volume reduction pathways, provide appropriate information, and ensure that post-discharge care is optimal.

Pseudo tumors of the lung after lung volume reduction surgery.

We describe 2 patients who underwent lung volume reduction surgery, who postoperatively had computed tomographic scans that showed symptomatic mass lesions suggestive of malignancy and an inhaled foreign body. Investigations excluded these conditions with the remaining likely diagnosis of pseudotumor secondary to buttressing material. These potential sequelae of lung volume reduction surgery should be recognized in follow-up investigations.

The increase in body mass index observed after lung volume reduction may act as surrogate marker of improved health status.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) on body mass index (BMI). METHODS: Prospective data was collected on a series of 63 patients undergoing LVRS (bilateral in 22 patients, unilateral in 41 patients). Median age was 58 (41-70) years. The peri-operative effects of LVRS on BMI, lung function and health status (assessed by SF 36 questionnaire) were recorded at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: We found an overall increase in BMI after LVRS, which was significant up to 2 years. These changes correlated with the changes in FEV1 (R = 0.3, P < 0.01 6 months after LVRS) and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) (R = 0.5, P < 0.01 6 months after LVRS). At 6 months, when the best results in health status were found, the patients were divided in a responders group (improved SF 36 score) and a non-responders group (same or worse SF 36 score) for each of the 8 domains of the SF 36. In 6 domains the non-responders showed no increase in BMI. In 6 domains the responders showed a significant increase in BMI. CONCLUSION: LVRS significantly improves postoperative BMI, which correlates with improvements in DLCO and reflects changes in health status.

The long-term health status improvements seen after lung volume reduction surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To correlate the long-term changes in respiratory physiology, body mass index (BMI) and health status after lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS). PATIENTS/METHODS: From 1995 to 2002 77 patients; 48 male: 29 female, median age 59 (41-72) years, have undergone LVRS (simultaneous bilateral in 27; staged bilateral in 3; unilateral in 47). FEV(1), total lung capacity (TLC), residual volume (RV) and RV/TLC ratio were measured preoperatively and at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years and 4 years post surgery. At the same time interval health status was assessed by Euroquol and Short Form 36 (SF 36) questionnaires. Seventeen patients have died within 4 years of their operation (30 day mortality 5%). RESULTS: The changes in FEV(1) are only significantly improved for 1 year post LVRS, while the improvements in TLC and RV remain significant up to 3 years postoperatively. The improvements in BMI also persist for 3 years. The best scores in Euroquol and SF 36 are obtained 6 months after LVRS but are only significantly improved up to 1 year. CONCLUSION: The physiological effects of volume LVRS are lasting but initial improvements in health status decline more rapidly.

The role of the emphysema multidisciplinary team in a successful lung volume reduction surgery programme†.

OBJECTIVES: Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) for advanced emphysema is well established, with strong evidence from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial. However, there is still reluctance to offer the procedure, and many have looked for alternative, unproven treatments. The multidisciplinary approach has been well established in treatment of lung cancer and, more recently, in coronary artery surgery. We reviewed our practice to validate the role of our multidisciplinary team approach in our LVRS programme. METHODS: Our multidisciplinary approach employs respiratory physicians, radiologists and surgeons involved in case selection, who meet on a regular basis. Cases are selected on the basis of clinical presentation, imaging (radionuclide lung perfusion and computerized tomography) and respiratory physiology. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on 633 patients referred for lung volume reduction surgery between July 1995 and July 2013. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty-three patients (422 male) were referred for LVRS, of whom 253 [178 male; median age 61 years (range 37-79 years)] underwent 292 LVRS procedures.There were 268 video-assisted thoracoscopic surgical procedures, of which 13 were one-stage bilateral procedures and 37 required a staged second side. Overall median hospital stay was 13 (4-197) days, during which 11 patients died. Prolonged hospital stay was associated with increasing age and with duration of air leak, which in turn was associated with diffusion capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 s. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of a successful LVRS programme are not only dependent on good surgical technique and post-operative care. Case selection and work-up by a dedicated multidisciplinary approach for emphysema patients plays an invaluable and integral part in an LVRS programme.

Staged bilateral lung volume reduction surgery - the benefits of a patient-led strategy.

OBJECTIVE: Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is conventionally a one-staged bilateral operation. We hypothesised that a more conservative staged bilateral approach determined by the patient not the surgeon would reduce operative risk and prolong the overall benefit. METHODS: In a population of 114 consecutive patients who were identified as suitable for bilateral LVRS an initial cohort of 26 patients (15 male; 11 female, median age: 58 years) underwent one-staged bilateral surgery: 18 by median sternotomy and eight by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) (group OB). A subsequent cohort of 88 patients had unilateral VATS LVRS with the contralateral operation not scheduled until the patient requested this. Longitudinal follow-up included analysis of lung function, health status (SF 36) and survival. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.8 (range: 0-9.9) years, staged bilateral LVRS was performed in 16 patients (10 male; 6 female, median age: 59 years) (group SB) at a median interval of 3.9 (range: 0.7-5.9) years after the first operation. Unilateral LVRS has been performed in 73 patients (43 male; 30 female, median age: 60 years) (group U). There were significant improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1) for 6 months in groups OB and U; in group SB there was a second improvement at 4 years (p<0.05). There were significant reductions in residual volume (RV) and total lung capacity (TLC) in groups OB and U for 2 years; in group SB there was a further significant reduction lasting up to 6 years in TLC (p<0.05) and RV (p<0.01). There were significant improvements in health status lasting up to 1 year in groups OB and U. However, in group SB these improvements lasted for 4 years in the domain of physical functioning and 6 years in the domains of social functioning and energy/vitality. There was no significant difference (p=0.07) in 30-day mortality among groups OB (7.7%), SB (13%) and U (4.1%). Similarly, there was no difference between groups OB and SB/U in 3-year survival (81% vs 77%) or 5-year survival (54% vs 66%). CONCLUSION: A staged bilateral approach to LVRS dictated by patients' perception of their condition appears to lead to a more prolonged overall benefit than one-staged LVRS without compromising survival.

Latissimus dorsi myoclonus after video assisted thoracoscopic lung volume reduction.

Myoclonus as a sequel to thoracotomy has been reported, and its treatment can be challenging to both the patient and the surgeon. We describe a 43-year-old patient with chest wall pain and latissimus dorsi muscle contractions (myoclonus) after video-assisted thoracoscopic lung volume reduction. His symptoms remained refractory to benzodiazepines, nerve blockage, and botulinum toxin injection due to either poor compliance or lack of response to therapy. These symptoms started to resolve spontaneously 18 months after the procedure.