The Impact of Alemtuzumab and Basiliximab Induction on Patient Survival and Time to Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome in Double Lung Transplantation Recipients.

We examined the effect of alemtuzumab and basiliximab induction therapy on patient survival and freedom from bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) in double lung transplantation. The United Network for Organ Sharing database was reviewed for adult double lung transplant recipients from 2006 to 2013. The primary outcome was risk-adjusted all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included time to BOS. There were 6117 patients were identified, of whom 738 received alemtuzumab, 2804 received basiliximab, and 2575 received no induction. Alemtuzumab recipients had higher lung allocation scores compared with basiliximab and no-induction recipients (41.4 versus 37.9 versus 40.7, p < 0.001) and were more likely to require mechanical ventilation before to transplantation (21.7% versus 6.5% versus 6.2%, p < 0.001). Median survival was longer for alemtuzumab and basiliximab recipients compared with patients who received no induction (2321 versus 2352 versus 1967 days, p = 0.001). Alemtuzumab (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.67-0.95, p = 0.009) and basiliximab induction (0.88, 0.80-0.98, p = 0.015) were independently associated with survival on multivariate analysis. At 5 years, alemtuzumab recipients had a lower incidence of BOS (22.7% versus 55.4 versus 55.9%), and its use was independently associated with lower risk of developing BOS on multivariate analysis. While both induction therapies were associated with improved survival, patients who received alemtuzumab had greater median freedom from BOS.

Discrepancy between severity of lung impairment and seniority on the lung transplantation list.

BACKGROUND: Organ allocation for lung transplantation, based mainly on accrued time on a waiting list, may not be an equitable system of organ allocation. To provide an objective view of the current practice concerning lung allocation, and timing for transplantation, we examined illness severity and list seniority in patients on a lung transplantation waiting list. METHODS: Adult patients awaiting lung transplantation underwent testing for mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPpa), maximum oxygen consumption (VO2 max), 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), forced expiratory volume in 1 second, mean partial pressure of carbon dioxide, partial pressure of oxygen/fractional concentration of inspired oxygen, and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide. Relationships between physiological variables and waiting list rankings were then determined. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were tested and there was no correlation between time spent waiting on the list and mPpa (r=0.01; P=.94), VO2 max percentage predicted (r=0.07; P=.71), or 6MWD (r=0.15; P=.42). Many patients with functional impairments as indicated by low maximum VO2 or by short 6MWD are scheduled to receive their transplant after patients with levels that indicate a lower degree of risk. When compared with a hypothetical reranking based on mean Ppa, 24 of the 34 patients (71%) on our current waiting list were found to be 5 positions higher or lower than this new risk-based ranking. Sixteen patients (47%) were 10 or more positions away from their hypothetical severity-based ranking, and 9 (26%) were at least 15 positions out of place. Sixteen of the 34 patients were ranked lower than they would be based on a severity of illness using the pulmonary artery pressure alone, 17 were ranked higher than "should be" based on pulmonary artery mean, and only 1 patient (ranked in position 15) was appropriately positioned based on seniority and severity of disease based on PA mean. CONCLUSION: Rank order for lung transplantation has no relationship with illness severity, and the discrepancy between disease severity and seniority on the lung waiting list may compromise overall outcomes in the lung transplantation population.

Surgery for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the place for lung volume reduction and transplantation.

Lung volume reduction surgery and lung transplantation have been shown to improve lung function, exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with advanced emphysema. Because the indications for both surgical procedures overlap, lung volume reduction surgery may be used as an alternative treatment or as a "bridge" to lung transplantation. In this article, we discuss patient selection, clinical outcome parameters, and the morbidity and mortality associated with each surgical procedure. We focus on the different preoperative predictors of good and poor outcomes after lung volume reduction surgery, the role of pulmonary rehabilitation, and the preferred surgical techniques for lung volume reduction surgery. An overview of the postoperative care of emphysema patients who undergo single-lung transplantation is also discussed.

Prospective randomized trial comparing bilateral lung volume reduction surgery to pulmonary rehabilitation in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Several uncontrolled studies report improvement in lung function, gas exchange, and exercise capacity after bilateral lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS). We recruited 200 patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) for a prospective randomized trial of pulmonary rehabilitation versus bilateral LVRS with stapling resection of 20 to 40% of each lung. Pulmonary function tests, gas exchange, 6-min walk distance, and symptom-limited maximal exercise testing were done in all patients at baseline and after 8 wk of rehabilitation. Patients were then randomized to either 3 additional months of rehabilitation or LVRS. Thirty-seven patients met study criteria and were enrolled into the trial. Eighteen patients were in the medical arm; 15 of 18 patients completed 3 mo of additional pulmonary rehabilitation. Thirty-two patients underwent LVRS (19 in the surgical arm, 13 crossover from the medical arm). After 8 wk of pulmonary rehabilitation, pulmonary function tests remained unchanged compared with baseline data. However, there was a trend toward a higher 6-min walk distance (285 +/- 96 versus 269 +/- 91 m, p = 0.14) and total exercise time on maximal exercise test was significantly longer compared with baseline values (7.4 +/- 2.1 versus 5.8 +/- 1.7 min, p < 0.001). In 15 patients who completed 3 mo of additional rehabilitation, there was a trend to a higher maximal oxygen consumption (V O(2)max) (13.3 +/- 3.0 versus 12.6 +/- 3.3, p < 0.08). In contrast, at 3 mo post-LVRS, FVC (2.79 +/- 0.59 versus 2.36 +/- 0.55 L, p < 0.001) and FEV(1) (0.85 +/- 0.3 versus 0.65 +/- 0.16 L, p < 0.005) increased whereas TLC (6.53 +/- 1.3 versus 7.65 +/- 2.1 L, p < 0.001) and residual volume (RV) (3.7 +/- 1.2 versus 4.9 +/- 1.1 L, p < 0.001) decreased when compared with 8 wk postrehabilitation data. In addition, Pa(CO(2)) decreased significantly 3 mo post-LVRS compared with 8 wk postrehabilitation. Six-minute walk distance (6MWD), total exercise time, and V O(2)max were higher after LVRS but did not reach statistical significance. However, when 13 patients who crossed over from the medical to the surgical arm were included in the analysis, the increases in 6MWD (337 +/- 99 versus 282 +/- 100 m, p < 0.001) and V O(2)max (13.8 +/- 4 versus 12.0 +/- 3 ml/kg/min, p < 0.01) 3 mo post-LVRS were highly significant when compared with postrehabilitation data. The Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), a generalized measure of quality of life (QOL), was significantly improved after 8 wk of rehabilitation and was maintained after 3 mo of additional rehabilitation. A further improvement in QOL was observed 3 mo after LVRS compared with the initial improvement gained after 8 wk of rehabilitation. There were 3 (9.4%) postoperative deaths, and one patient died before surgery (2.7%). We conclude that bilateral LVRS, in addition to pulmonary rehabilitation, improves static lung function, gas exchange, and QOL compared with pulmonary rehabilitation alone. Further studies need to evaluate the risks, benefits, and durability of LVRS over time.

Effect of lung volume reduction surgery on diaphragm strength.

Since lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) reduces end-expiratory lung volume, we hypothesized that it may improve diaphragm strength. We evaluated 37 patients for pulmonary rehabilitation and LVRS. Before and 8 wk after pulmonary rehabilitation, 24 patients had spirometry, lung volumes, diffusion capacity, incremental symptom limited maximum exercise test, 6-min walk test, maximal static inspiratory and expiratory mouth pressures, and transdiaphragmatic pressures during maximum static inspiratory efforts and bilateral supramaximal electrophrenic twitch stimulation measured. Twenty patients (including 7 patients who crossed over after completing pulmonary rehabilitation) had baseline measurements postrehabilitation, and 3 mo post-LVRS. Patients were 58 +/- 8 yr of age, with severe COPD and hyperinflation (FEV1, 0.69 +/- 0.21 L; RV, 4.7 +/- 1.4 L). Nineteen patients had bilateral LVRS performed via median sternotomy and stapling, and 1 patient had unilateral LVRS via thorascopy with stapling. After rehabilitation, spirometry and DL(CO)/VA were not different, and lung volumes showed a slight worsening in hyperinflation. Gas exchange, 6-min walk distance, maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max), and breathing pattern during maximum exercise did not change after rehabilitation, but total exercise time was significantly longer. Inspiratory muscle strength (PImax, Pdi(max combined), Pdi(max sniff), Pdi(max), Pdi(twitch)), was unchanged after rehabilitation. In contrast, after LVRS, FVC increased 21%, FEV1 increased 34%, TLC decreased 13%, FRC decreased 23%, and FRC(trapped gas) and RV decreased by 57 and 28%, respectively. PCO2 was lower (44 +/- 6 versus 48 +/- 6 mm Hg, p < 0.003) and 6-min walk distance increased (343 +/- 79 versus 250 +/- 89 m, p < 0.001), as did total exercise time during maximum exercise (9.2 +/- 1.9 versus 6.9 +/- 2.7 min, p < 0.01). Minute ventilation (29 +/- 8 versus 21 +/- 6 L/min, p < 0.001) and tidal volume (1.0 +/- 0.33 versus 0.84 +/- 0.25 L, p < 0.001) during maximum exercise increased whereas respiratory rate was lower (28 +/- 6 versus 32 +/- 7 breaths/min, p < 0.02). Measurements of respiratory muscle strength (PImax, 74 +/- 28 versus 50 +/- 18 cm H2O, p < 0.002; Pdi(max combined), 80 +/- 25 versus 56 +/- 29 cm H2O, p < 0.01; Pdi(max sniff), 71 +/- 7 versus 46 +/- 27 cm H2O, p < 0.01; Pdi(twitch), 15 +/- 5 versus 7 +/- 5 cm H2O, p < 0.01) were all greater post-LVRS. Inspiratory muscle workload as measured by Pdi TTI was lower following LVRS (0.07 +/- 0.02 versus 0.09 +/- 0.03, p < 0.03). On multiple regression analysis, increases in PImax correlated significantly with decreases in RV and FRC(trapped gas) after LVRS (r = 0.67, p < 0.03). We conclude that LVRS significantly improves diaphragm strength that is associated with a reduction in lung volumes and an improvement in exercise performance. Future studies are needed to determine the relationship and stability of these changes over time.

Management of advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Successful Management of patients with advanced COPD includes not only a comprehensive therapeutic strategy tailored to the individual patient but also active patient participation. Figures 1 and 2 outline the medical and surgical treatment options for patients with advanced COPD. Patients who are actively smoking should be strongly advised to quit smoking. Bronchodilators and corticosteroids can improve symptoms and may prevent a further decline in lung function in selected COPD patients. The judicious use of antibiotics during an acute exacerbation may be required. O2 therapy improves survival and neuropsychiatric function in COPD patients with hypoxemia. Maintenance of proper nutrition is of utmost importance. A structured outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation is helpful in improving functional capacity and sense of breathlessness. In COPD patients who fail medical therapy, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and surgical therapy may be considered.

Treatment of left pneumonectomy syndrome with an expandable endobronchial prosthesis.

Postneumonectomy syndrome has only been described after a right pneumonectomy except in cases of congenital mediastinal anomalies or right-sided aortic arch. Placement of Silastic prostheses into the empty hemithorax is the preferred surgical treatment; however, other nonsurgical options exist. Herein, we report a case of left postpneumonectomy syndrome in an adult who was successfully treated with the placement of an endobronchial stent.