How Well Does CAPTURE Translate?: An Exploratory Analysis of a COPD Case-Finding Method for Spanish-Speaking Patients.

BACKGROUND: This study tested the properties of a Spanish translation of CAPTURE (COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk) with selective use of peak expiratory flow (PEF). METHODS: This study comprised analyses of data from the Spanish-speaking cohort of the cross-sectional, case-control study used to develop CAPTURE. Translation procedures included forward and backward translation, reconciliation, and cognitive interviewing to assure linguistic and cultural equivalence, yielding CAPTURE-S. Spanish-speaking participants were recruited through one center and designated as case subjects (clinically significant COPD: FEV1 ≤ 60% predicted and/or at risk of COPD exacerbation) or control subjects (no or mild COPD). Subjects completed a questionnaire booklet that included 44 candidate items, the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea question. PEF and spirometry were also performed. RESULTS: The study included 30 participants (17 case subjects and 13 control subjects). Their mean (± SD) age was 62.6 (11.49) years, and 33% were male. CAPTURE-S scores were significantly correlated with PEF (r = -0.78), the FEV1/FVC ratio (r = -0.74), FEV1 (r = -0.69), FEV1 % predicted (r = -0.69), the CAT score (r = 0.70), and the mMRC dyspnea question (r = 0.59) (P < .0001), with significantly higher scores in case subjects than in control subjects (t = 6.16; P < .0001). PEF significantly correlated with FEV1 (r = 0.89), FEV1 % predicted (r = 0.79), and the FEV1/FVC ratio (r = 0.75) (P < .0001), with significantly lower PEF in case subjects than in control subjects (t = 5.08; P < .0001). CAPTURE-S score + PEF differentiated case subjects and control subjects with a sensitivity of 88.2% and a specificity of 92.3%. CONCLUSIONS: CAPTURE-S with selective use of PEF seems to be useful for identifying Spanish-speaking patients in need of diagnostic evaluation for clinically significant COPD who may benefit from initiation of COPD treatment. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01880177; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

The safety, efficacy, and durability of lung-volume reduction surgery: A 10-year experience.

OBJECTIVES: The National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) validated the efficacy of lung-volume reduction surgery (LVRS) in selected patients with emphysema; however, concerns about the safety and durability of the operation have limited its clinical application. We evaluated our experience with LVRS, for the time period since approval was given by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, with respect to surgical morbidity and mortality, early and late functional outcomes, and long-term survival. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on 91 patients for whom consent was obtained for bilateral LVRS at our institution between January 2004 and June 2014. Primary outcomes analyzed were 6-month surgical mortality and overall survival at 1, 2, and 5 years. Secondary outcomes (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1], residual volume, carbon monoxide diffusing capacity, a 6-minute walk test, exercise capacity, and a shortness-of-breath questionnaire) were analyzed for mean change from baseline at 1, 2, and 5 years after LVRS. RESULTS: The 6-month surgical mortality rate was 0%. At the 1- and 5-year follow-up, 69% and 36% of the patients had an improvement in FEV1. The 1-, 2-, and 5-year FEV1 change in % predicted of the FEV1, compared with baseline after LVRS, respectively, was 11.1% (95% CI: 8.6%, 13.6%); 8.7% (95% CI: 6.1%, 11.4%); and 11.1% (95% CI: 7.1%, 15.0%); and the maximal workload (in watts [W]) had an average increase of: 10.7 W (95% CI: 6.9, 14.6); 7.6 W (95% CI: 2.8, 12.4); and 10.24 W (95% CI: 4.4, 16.1). Overall survival (95% CI) for the group was: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.00) at 1 year; 0.97 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.00) at 2 years; and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.67, 0.89) at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Given proper patient selection, LVRS is a safe operation. Early functional measurements are consistent with significant clinical benefit. Long-term results demonstrate that improvements can be durable. Surgical LVRS continues to represent the standard for lung-volume reduction therapy.