Research on the effectiveness and safety of bronchial thermoplasty in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of bronchial thermoplasty (BT) in treating patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Clinical data of 57 COPD patients were randomized into the control (n = 29, conventional inhalation therapy) or intervention group (n = 28, conventional inhalation therapy plus BT). Primary outcomes were differences in clinical symptom changes, pulmonary function-related indicators, modified Medical Research Council (mMRC), 6-min walk test (6MWT), COPD assessment test (CAT) score and acute exacerbation incidence from baseline to an average of 3 and 12 months. Safety was assessed by adverse events. RESULTS: FEV1, FEV1(%, predicted) and FVC in both groups improved to varying degrees post-treatment compared with those pre-treatment (P < 0.05). The Intervention group showed greater improving amplitudes of FEV1 (Ftime × between groups = 21.713, P < 0.001) and FEV1(%, predicted) (Ftime × between groups = 31.216, P < 0.001) than the control group, and there was no significant difference in FVC variation trend (Ftime × between groups = 1.705, P = 0.193). mMRC, 6MWT and CAT scores of both groups post-treatment improved to varying degrees (Ps < 0.05), but the improving amplitudes of mMRC (Ftime × between groups = 3.947, P = 0.025), 6MWT (Ftime × between groups = 16.988, P < 0.001) and CAT score (Ftime × between groups = 16.741, P < 0.001) in the intervention group were greater than the control group. According to risk assessment of COPD acute exacerbation, the proportion of high-risk COPD patients with acute exacerbation in the control and intervention groups at 1 year post-treatment (100% vs 65%, 100% vs 28.6%), inpatient proportion (100% vs 62.1%; 100% vs 28.6%), COPD acute exacerbations [3.0 (2.50, 5.0) vs 1.0 (1.0, 2.50); 3.0(3.0, 4.0) vs 0 (0, 1.0)] and hospitalizations [2.0 (2.0, 3.0) vs 1.0 (0, 2.0); 2.0 (2.0, 3.0) vs 0 (0, 1.0)] were significantly lower than those pre-treatment (P < 0.05). Besides, data of the intervention group were significantly lower than the control group at each timepoint after treatment (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Combined BT therapy is superior to conventional medical treatment in improving lung function and quality of life of COPD patients, and it also significantly reduces the COPD exacerbation risk without causing serious adverse events.

Correlation of Activation Site and Number with the Clinical Response to Bronchial Thermoplasty.

Objective: To investigate the relation of activation site and number with clinical response to bronchial thermoplasty (BT) in refractory asthma patients. Methods: This work included 106 consecutive refractory asthma patients completing three BT sessions in our hospital from May 2016 to May 2019. Procedure details included recording delivery sites and those in BT. Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) scores and spirometric measurements were recorded 1-day before treatment and 6 months post-treatment to explore the effects of BT activation number and site on clinical response. Results: ACQ score (3.19±1.14 vs 1.26±0.63), forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1)% predicted (55.53±21.66 vs 66.19±22.50), FEV1 (1.53±0.74 vs 1.93±0.82), and forced vital capacity (FVC) (2.49±0.86 vs 2.92±0.94) significantly increased after three BT sessions compared with pre-session. Major bronchial ablation did not significantly improve BT response in asthma patients. Multivariate logistic regression identified baseline ACQ score and baseline FEV1% predicted as independent factors affecting the clinical response to BT. Correlation and regression analysis revealed a significant linear relationship between baseline ACQ and ACQ improvement, as well as a linear relationship between the third session activation number and ACQ improvement. Based on subgroup analysis of activation number, cohort C (activations ≥ 200) had better lung function, lower non-responding rate, and better long-term effectiveness than the other two cohorts. The activation number in the third BT session showed the strongest predictive ability compared with the first two sessions. Conclusion: Main bronchial ablation did not markedly affect clinical response to BT. Baseline ACQ and baseline FEV1% predicted were independent factors affecting clinical response to BT. Increasing the activation number might promote the therapeutic efficacy of BT, and the activation number in the third BT session correlated with and predicted the BT response.