Chartis Measurement of Collateral Ventilation: Conscious Sedation versus General Anesthesia - A Retrospective Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Absence of interlobar collateral ventilation using the Chartis measurement is the key predictor for successful endobronchial valve treatment in severe emphysema. Chartis was originally validated in spontaneous breathing patients under conscious sedation (CS); however, this can be challenging due to cough, mucus secretion, mucosal swelling, and bronchoconstriction. Performing Chartis under general anesthesia (GA) avoids these problems and may result in an easier procedure with a higher success rate. However, using Chartis under GA with positive pressure ventilation has not been validated. OBJECTIVES: In this study we investigated the impact of anesthesia technique, CS versus GA, on the feasibility and outcomes of Chartis measurement. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all Chartis measurements performed at our hospital from October 2010 until December 2017. RESULTS: We analyzed 250 emphysema patients (median forced expiratory volume in 1 s 26%, range 12-52% predicted). In 121 patients (48%) the measurement was performed using CS, in 124 (50%) using GA, and in 5 (2%) both anesthesia techniques were used. In total, 746 Chartis readings were analyzed (432 CS, 277 GA, and 37 combination). Testing under CS took significantly longer than GA (median 19 min [range 5-65] vs. 11 min [3-35], p < 0.001) and required more measurements (3 [1-13] vs. 2 [1-6], p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in target lobe volume reduction after treatment (-1,123 mL [-3,604 to 332] in CS vs. -1,251 mL [-3,333 to -1] in GA, p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, Chartis measurement under CS took significantly longer and required more measurements than under GA, without a difference in treatment outcome. We recommend a prospective trial comparing both techniques within the same patients to validate this approach.

Lung volume reduction coil treatment in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with homogeneous emphysema: a prospective feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with heterogeneous emphysema, surgical and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (LVR) treatments are available. However, for patients with homogeneous emphysema these treatments are hardly investigated and seem less effective. Bronchoscopic LVR coil treatment has been shown to be effective in patients with heterogeneous emphysema, but this treatment has not been exclusively investigated in homogeneous emphysema. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of LVR coil treatment in patients with homogeneous emphysema. METHODS: In this single-arm, open-label study, patients received a maximum of 12 LVR coils (PneumRx Inc., Mountain View, Calif., USA) in each upper lobe in two sequential procedures. Tests were performed at baseline and at 6 months. The primary endpoint was the improvement from baseline in 6-min walking distance (6MWD) after treatment. RESULTS: Ten patients with severe airway obstruction and hyperinflation were treated. A median of 11 (range 10-12) coils were placed in each lung. Two chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations and one small pneumothorax were recorded as serious adverse events. At 6 months, 6MWD had improved from 289 to 350 m (p = 0.005); forced vital capacity from 2.17 to 2.55 liters (p = 0.047); residual volume from 5.04 to 4.44 liters (p = 0.007) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire from 63 to 48 points (p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: LVR coil treatment in homogeneous patients improves hyperinflation, airway resistance, exercise capacity and quality of life with an acceptable safety profile. The benefit of LVR coil treatment is not limited to patients with heterogeneous emphysema, and patients with homogenous emphysema can benefit as well.

Collateral Ventilation Measurement Using Chartis: Procedural Sedation vs General Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Absence of interlobar collateral ventilation is key to successful endobronchial valve treatment in patients with severe emphysema and can be functionally assessed by using the Chartis measurement. This system has been validated during spontaneous breathing, undergoing procedural sedation (PS), but can also be performed under general anesthesia. Performing the Chartis measurement under PS is often challenging because of coughing, mucus secretion, and difficulties in maintaining an adequate level of sedation. The objective of this study was to investigate whether there is a difference in Chartis measurement outcomes between PS and general anesthesia. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients underwent Chartis measurements under both PS and general anesthesia. Study outcomes were Chartis measurement duration, number of measurements, feasibility, and success rate. RESULTS: The study included 30 patients with severe emphysema (mean age, 62 years; median FEV1, 29% of predicted). Chartis measurement duration was significantly longer under PS than under general anesthesia (mean, 20.3 ± 4.2 min vs 15.1 ± 4.4 min; P < .001). There was no difference in the number (median [range]) of measurements performed (2 [1-3] for PS vs 1 [1-3] for general anesthesia; P = 1.00). Chartis measurement was more feasible during general anesthesia (median sum of all feasibility scores, 12 [range, 6-26] for PS vs 7 [5-13] for general anesthesia; P < .001). There was no statistical difference in success rate: 77% of PS cases vs 97% of general anesthesia cases (P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that Chartis measurement under general anesthesia is faster and more feasible to perform compared with performance with PS, without affecting measurement outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov; No. NCT03205826; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.