Competence in flexible bronchoscopy and basic biopsy technique.

Diagnostic bronchoscopy and tissue sampling techniques using forceps (endobronchial biopsy [EBB] and transbronchial biopsies [TBB]) or needle aspiration (transbronchial needle aspiration-TBNA), all performed with a flexible bronchoscope, are the basic elements of any interventional procedure. The flexible fibrobronchoscopy allows the visualization of the airways and is used both for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The working channel of both fibrobronchoscopes with optical fibers and videobronchoscopes, even if of relatively small diameter, allows the insertion of various diagnostic and therapeutic accessories. Fiber optic systems have been widely replaced by video cameras using a miniaturized charge-coupled device camera positioned at the end of the scope that provides electronic transmission of images to a monitor. The indications for both diagnostic and therapeutic fibrobronchoscopy derive from a correct evaluation of symptoms and objective signs of the patient and from the correct interpretation of imaging methods. Although bronchoscopy techniques keep evolving at a rapid pace, basic procedures such as bronchoalveolar lavage, transbronchial lung biopsy, and transbronchial needle aspiration still play a key role in pulmonary disease diagnostics, and therefore, these methods must still be part of the training of interventional pulmonologists. Trainees will acquire a thorough knowledge of thoracic anatomy and become skilled in the interpretation of thoracic imaging, after which they will be given a theoretical and practical training course on virtual reality simulators, on animal or cadaver models, the effectiveness of which has been fully demonstrated by scientific studies. Specific DOPS tests have been developed for a qualitative evaluation of procedures on simulators, on animal models and on the patient.

Unidirectional endobronchial valves for management of persistent air-leaks: results of a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy of Endo-Bronchial Valves in the management of persistent air-leaks (PALs) and the procedural cost. METHODS: It was a retrospective multicenter study including consecutive patients with PALs for alveolar pleural fistula (APF) undergoing valve treatment. We assessed the efficacy and the cost of the procedure. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients with persistent air leaks due to various etiologies were included in the analysis. In all cases the air leaks were severe and refractory to standard treatments. Sixty-seven (91%) patients underwent valve treatment obtaining a complete resolution of air-leaks in 59 (88%) patients; a reduction of air-leaks in 6 (9%); and no benefits in 2 (3%). The comparison of data before and after valve treatment showed a significant reduction of air-leak duration (16.2±8.8 versus 5.0±1.7 days; P<0.0001); chest tube removal (16.2±8.8 versus 7.3±2.7 days; P<0.0001); and length of hospital stay (LOS) (16.2±8.8 versus 9.7±2.8 days; P=0.004). Seven patients not undergoing valve treatment underwent pneumo-peritoneum with pleurodesis (n=6) or only pleurodesis (n=1). In only 1 (14%) patient, the chest drainage was removed 23 days later while the remaining 6 (86%) were discharged with a domiciliary chest drainage removed after 157±41 days. No significant difference was found in health cost before and after endobronchial valve (EBV) implant (P=0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Valve treatment for persistent air leaks is an effective procedure. The reduction of hospitalization costs related to early resolution of air-leaks could overcome the procedural cost.

Complications related to endoscopic lung volume reduction for emphysema with endobronchial valves: results of a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Despite bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with valves is a minimally invasive treatment for emphysema, it can associate with some complications. We aimed at evaluating the rate and type of complications related to valve treatment and their impact on clinical outcomes. METHODS: It is a retrospective multicenter study including all consecutive patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema undergoing BLVR with endobronchial valve treatment and developed any complications related to this procedure. The type of complication, the time of onset, the treatment required and the out-come were evaluated. Response to treatment was assessed according to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) as follows: an improvement of ≥15% in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1); of -8% in residual volume (RV); of ≥26 m in 6-minnute walking distance (6MWD); and of ≥4 points on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Target lobe volume reduction (TLVR) ≥350 mL was considered significant. RESULTS: One hundred and seven out of 423 (25.3%) treated patients had complications related to valve treatment including pneumothorax (17.3%); pneumonia (1.7%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation (0.9%), respiratory failure (1.4%), valve migration (2.1%), and hemoptysis (1.9%). In all cases complications resolved with appropriate treatment including removal of valves in 21/107 cases (19.6%). Patients with TLVR ≥350 mL (n=64) vs. those <350 mL (n=43) had a statistically significant higher improvement in FEV1 (19.0%±3.9% vs. 3.0%±0.9%; P=0.0003); in RV (-10.0%±4.8% vs. -4.0%±2.9%; P=0.002); in 6MWD (33.0±19.0 vs. 12.0±6.3 metres; P=0.001); and in SGRQ (-15.0±2.9 vs. -8.0±3.5 points; P=0.01). Only patients with TLVR ≥350 mL met or exceeded the MCID cut-off criteria for FEV1 (19.0%±3.9%), RV (-10.0%±4.8%), 6MWT (33.0±19.0 metres), and SGQR (-15.0±2.9 points). Five patients (1.2%) died during follow-up for causes not related to valves treatment neither to any of the complications described. CONCLUSIONS: Valve treatment is a safe and reversible procedure. The presence of complications seems not to have a significant impact on clinical outcome in patients with lobar atelectasis. Due to poor clinical conditions and possible complications, BLVR should be performed in high volume centers with a multidisciplinary approach.

A crossover randomized comparative study of zofenopril and ramipril on cough reflex and airway inflammation in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Persistent dry cough is a well known unwanted effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme inhibitors (ACE-i). Animal studies have shown that the ACE-i zofenopril has a less tussigenic effect compared to the widely used ACE-i ramipril. The aim of this study was to compare cough sensitivity to inhaled tussigens, as well as spontaneous cough in response to the administration of zofenopril and ramipril in healthy volunteers; pharmacokinetic (PK) data of both zofenopril and ramipril, as well as their respective active forms, zofenoprilat and ramiprilat, was also collected. METHODS: Forty healthy volunteers were enrolled in a randomized crossover study. Patients were administered zofenopril calcium salt (test drug) coated tablets, 30 mg daily dose or ramipril (reference drug) tablets, 10 mg daily dose, for 7 consecutive days in two periods separated by a 21-day wash-out period. Cough sensitivity to capsaicin and citric acid was assessed as the concentration of each tussigenic agent causing at least 2 (C2) or 5 coughs (C5); spontaneous cough was also monitored throughout the study. PK parameters of zofenopril, ramipril and their active forms, were collected for each of the two study periods. Airway inflammation, as assessed by fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and bradykinin (BK) levels, were measured prior to and following each treatment period. RESULTS: Ramipril, but not zofenopril, increased (p < 0.01) cough sensitivity to both tussigenic agents as assessed by C2. With citric acid, C5 values calculated after both ramipril and zofenopril administration were significantly (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively) lower than corresponding control values. With both ACE-i drugs, spontaneous cough was infrequently reported by subjects. Zofenopril/zofenoprilat PK analysis showed higher area under the curve of plasma concentration, τ values (ng/ml x h) than ramipril/ramiprilat (zofenopril vs. ramipril, 84.25 ± 34.47 vs. 47.40 ± 21.30; and zofenoprilat vs. ramiprilat, 653.67 ± 174.91 vs. 182.26 ± 61.28). Both ACE-i drugs did not affect BK plasma levels; in contrast, ramipril, but not zofenopril, significantly increased control FeNO values (from 24 ± 9.6 parts per billion [PPB] to 33 ± 16 PPB; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Zofenopril has a more favourable profile when compared to ramipril as shown by a reduced pro-inflammatory activity and less impact on the cough reflex.