Screening for Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction: Reasons for Not Receiving Interventional Treatment
Background Evidence for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) is based on phase 2 studies and small randomized controlled trials with in- and exclusion criteria defining a therapeutic window and contraindications. Little is known about the applicability in routine clinical practice. Aim Which p...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Lung 2020-02, Vol.198 (1), p.221-228 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 228 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 221 |
container_title | Lung |
container_volume | 198 |
creator | May, Nadine Niehaus-Gebele, Christa Reichenberger, Frank Behr, Jürgen Gesierich, Wolfgang |
description | Background
Evidence for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) is based on phase 2 studies and small randomized controlled trials with in- and exclusion criteria defining a therapeutic window and contraindications. Little is known about the applicability in routine clinical practice.
Aim
Which percentage of patients with severe emphysema referred to a specialized treatment center for BLVR is ultimately suitable for interventional bronchoscopic treatment? What is the relevance of the different contraindications?
Methods
Retrospective evaluation of emphysema patients referred to Asklepios Fachkliniken Munich-Gauting for BLVR between January 2014 and June 2015.
Results
138 patients were referred for evaluation of BLVR. 38 patients (27.5%) underwent BLVR procedures (valves
n
= 18; coils
n
= 18; thermal vapor ablation
n
= 2). 100 patients (72.5%) were deemed not eligible for BLVR based on the following contraindications: 34% emphysema morphology and emphysema-related findings (severe homogeneous emphysema, extensive pleuropulmonary adhesions, postinflammatory scaring with natural volume reduction, giant bullae), 16% active smoking; 9% pulmonary function not within indication range; 8% unexpected CT findings (nodules, cancer, interstitial disease); 8% chronic ventilatory failure; 8% patient refused BLVR; 5% relevant comorbidity; 5% frequent exacerbations, 3% preserved quality of life, 4% other.
Conclusion
BLVR is a therapeutic option for highly selected patients. In our cohort, one in four could be treated. These data highlight the limitations of BLVR under real-life conditions. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00408-019-00303-7 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2336999185</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A614362616</galeid><sourcerecordid>A614362616</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-627dfa48f72a4245ae21971b727280458d2fe35799192f99d1a446ff4d5dcf613</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kk9rFTEUxYMo9tn6BVzIgCBu0ubfTCbuaqlaeFSw1W1IMzfvpcwkz2Sm4LdvplPFwkOySO7N79zFuQehN5QcU0LkSSZEkBYTqjAhnHAsn6EVFZxhKmvyHK0IFxSzAh2gVznfEkJlQ-uX6IDTljMp1ArBlU0AwYdN5WKqPqUY7DZmG3feVuuptH_Gfhqg-g7dZEcfw8fyNDmG_CC4jGOpLfi7ecRFGCHdQZg501fXCcw4lPIIvXCmz_D68T5EPz6fX599xetvXy7OTtfYipaPuGGyc0a0TjIjmKgNMKokvZFMspaIuu2YA15LpahiTqmOGiEa50RXd9Y1lB-iD8vcXYq_JsijHny20PcmQJyyZpw3qqjbuqDvFnRjetA-uDgmY2dcnzbFxIY1tCkU3kNtIEAyfQzgfGk_4Y_38OV0MHi7V_D-H8EWTD9uc3F8djA_BdkC2hRzTuD0LvnBpN-aEj3HQS9x0CUO-iEOWhbR20c_ppsBur-SP_svAF-AXL7CBpK-jVMqu8v_G3sPfTy9TA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2336999185</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Screening for Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction: Reasons for Not Receiving Interventional Treatment</title><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>May, Nadine ; Niehaus-Gebele, Christa ; Reichenberger, Frank ; Behr, Jürgen ; Gesierich, Wolfgang</creator><creatorcontrib>May, Nadine ; Niehaus-Gebele, Christa ; Reichenberger, Frank ; Behr, Jürgen ; Gesierich, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Evidence for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) is based on phase 2 studies and small randomized controlled trials with in- and exclusion criteria defining a therapeutic window and contraindications. Little is known about the applicability in routine clinical practice.
Aim
Which percentage of patients with severe emphysema referred to a specialized treatment center for BLVR is ultimately suitable for interventional bronchoscopic treatment? What is the relevance of the different contraindications?
Methods
Retrospective evaluation of emphysema patients referred to Asklepios Fachkliniken Munich-Gauting for BLVR between January 2014 and June 2015.
Results
138 patients were referred for evaluation of BLVR. 38 patients (27.5%) underwent BLVR procedures (valves
n
= 18; coils
n
= 18; thermal vapor ablation
n
= 2). 100 patients (72.5%) were deemed not eligible for BLVR based on the following contraindications: 34% emphysema morphology and emphysema-related findings (severe homogeneous emphysema, extensive pleuropulmonary adhesions, postinflammatory scaring with natural volume reduction, giant bullae), 16% active smoking; 9% pulmonary function not within indication range; 8% unexpected CT findings (nodules, cancer, interstitial disease); 8% chronic ventilatory failure; 8% patient refused BLVR; 5% relevant comorbidity; 5% frequent exacerbations, 3% preserved quality of life, 4% other.
Conclusion
BLVR is a therapeutic option for highly selected patients. In our cohort, one in four could be treated. These data highlight the limitations of BLVR under real-life conditions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0341-2040</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1750</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00408-019-00303-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31832749</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Bronchoscopy ; Care and treatment ; Diagnosis ; Emphysema, Pulmonary ; Interventional Bronchoscopy ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Methods ; Pneumology/Respiratory System</subject><ispartof>Lung, 2020-02, Vol.198 (1), p.221-228</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Springer</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-627dfa48f72a4245ae21971b727280458d2fe35799192f99d1a446ff4d5dcf613</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-627dfa48f72a4245ae21971b727280458d2fe35799192f99d1a446ff4d5dcf613</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6707-6358</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00408-019-00303-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00408-019-00303-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31832749$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>May, Nadine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Niehaus-Gebele, Christa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reichenberger, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Behr, Jürgen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gesierich, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><title>Screening for Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction: Reasons for Not Receiving Interventional Treatment</title><title>Lung</title><addtitle>Lung</addtitle><addtitle>Lung</addtitle><description>Background
Evidence for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) is based on phase 2 studies and small randomized controlled trials with in- and exclusion criteria defining a therapeutic window and contraindications. Little is known about the applicability in routine clinical practice.
Aim
Which percentage of patients with severe emphysema referred to a specialized treatment center for BLVR is ultimately suitable for interventional bronchoscopic treatment? What is the relevance of the different contraindications?
Methods
Retrospective evaluation of emphysema patients referred to Asklepios Fachkliniken Munich-Gauting for BLVR between January 2014 and June 2015.
Results
138 patients were referred for evaluation of BLVR. 38 patients (27.5%) underwent BLVR procedures (valves
n
= 18; coils
n
= 18; thermal vapor ablation
n
= 2). 100 patients (72.5%) were deemed not eligible for BLVR based on the following contraindications: 34% emphysema morphology and emphysema-related findings (severe homogeneous emphysema, extensive pleuropulmonary adhesions, postinflammatory scaring with natural volume reduction, giant bullae), 16% active smoking; 9% pulmonary function not within indication range; 8% unexpected CT findings (nodules, cancer, interstitial disease); 8% chronic ventilatory failure; 8% patient refused BLVR; 5% relevant comorbidity; 5% frequent exacerbations, 3% preserved quality of life, 4% other.
Conclusion
BLVR is a therapeutic option for highly selected patients. In our cohort, one in four could be treated. These data highlight the limitations of BLVR under real-life conditions.</description><subject>Bronchoscopy</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Emphysema, Pulmonary</subject><subject>Interventional Bronchoscopy</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Pneumology/Respiratory System</subject><issn>0341-2040</issn><issn>1432-1750</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kk9rFTEUxYMo9tn6BVzIgCBu0ubfTCbuaqlaeFSw1W1IMzfvpcwkz2Sm4LdvplPFwkOySO7N79zFuQehN5QcU0LkSSZEkBYTqjAhnHAsn6EVFZxhKmvyHK0IFxSzAh2gVznfEkJlQ-uX6IDTljMp1ArBlU0AwYdN5WKqPqUY7DZmG3feVuuptH_Gfhqg-g7dZEcfw8fyNDmG_CC4jGOpLfi7ecRFGCHdQZg501fXCcw4lPIIvXCmz_D68T5EPz6fX599xetvXy7OTtfYipaPuGGyc0a0TjIjmKgNMKokvZFMspaIuu2YA15LpahiTqmOGiEa50RXd9Y1lB-iD8vcXYq_JsijHny20PcmQJyyZpw3qqjbuqDvFnRjetA-uDgmY2dcnzbFxIY1tCkU3kNtIEAyfQzgfGk_4Y_38OV0MHi7V_D-H8EWTD9uc3F8djA_BdkC2hRzTuD0LvnBpN-aEj3HQS9x0CUO-iEOWhbR20c_ppsBur-SP_svAF-AXL7CBpK-jVMqu8v_G3sPfTy9TA</recordid><startdate>20200201</startdate><enddate>20200201</enddate><creator>May, Nadine</creator><creator>Niehaus-Gebele, Christa</creator><creator>Reichenberger, Frank</creator><creator>Behr, Jürgen</creator><creator>Gesierich, Wolfgang</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6707-6358</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200201</creationdate><title>Screening for Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction: Reasons for Not Receiving Interventional Treatment</title><author>May, Nadine ; Niehaus-Gebele, Christa ; Reichenberger, Frank ; Behr, Jürgen ; Gesierich, Wolfgang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-627dfa48f72a4245ae21971b727280458d2fe35799192f99d1a446ff4d5dcf613</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Bronchoscopy</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Emphysema, Pulmonary</topic><topic>Interventional Bronchoscopy</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Pneumology/Respiratory System</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>May, Nadine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Niehaus-Gebele, Christa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reichenberger, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Behr, Jürgen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gesierich, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Lung</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>May, Nadine</au><au>Niehaus-Gebele, Christa</au><au>Reichenberger, Frank</au><au>Behr, Jürgen</au><au>Gesierich, Wolfgang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Screening for Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction: Reasons for Not Receiving Interventional Treatment</atitle><jtitle>Lung</jtitle><stitle>Lung</stitle><addtitle>Lung</addtitle><date>2020-02-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>198</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>221</spage><epage>228</epage><pages>221-228</pages><issn>0341-2040</issn><eissn>1432-1750</eissn><abstract>Background
Evidence for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) is based on phase 2 studies and small randomized controlled trials with in- and exclusion criteria defining a therapeutic window and contraindications. Little is known about the applicability in routine clinical practice.
Aim
Which percentage of patients with severe emphysema referred to a specialized treatment center for BLVR is ultimately suitable for interventional bronchoscopic treatment? What is the relevance of the different contraindications?
Methods
Retrospective evaluation of emphysema patients referred to Asklepios Fachkliniken Munich-Gauting for BLVR between January 2014 and June 2015.
Results
138 patients were referred for evaluation of BLVR. 38 patients (27.5%) underwent BLVR procedures (valves
n
= 18; coils
n
= 18; thermal vapor ablation
n
= 2). 100 patients (72.5%) were deemed not eligible for BLVR based on the following contraindications: 34% emphysema morphology and emphysema-related findings (severe homogeneous emphysema, extensive pleuropulmonary adhesions, postinflammatory scaring with natural volume reduction, giant bullae), 16% active smoking; 9% pulmonary function not within indication range; 8% unexpected CT findings (nodules, cancer, interstitial disease); 8% chronic ventilatory failure; 8% patient refused BLVR; 5% relevant comorbidity; 5% frequent exacerbations, 3% preserved quality of life, 4% other.
Conclusion
BLVR is a therapeutic option for highly selected patients. In our cohort, one in four could be treated. These data highlight the limitations of BLVR under real-life conditions.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>31832749</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00408-019-00303-7</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6707-6358</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0341-2040 |
ispartof | Lung, 2020-02, Vol.198 (1), p.221-228 |
issn | 0341-2040 1432-1750 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2336999185 |
source | SpringerNature Journals |
subjects | Bronchoscopy Care and treatment Diagnosis Emphysema, Pulmonary Interventional Bronchoscopy Medicine Medicine & Public Health Methods Pneumology/Respiratory System |
title | Screening for Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction: Reasons for Not Receiving Interventional Treatment |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T11%3A01%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Screening%20for%20Bronchoscopic%20Lung%20Volume%20Reduction:%20Reasons%20for%20Not%20Receiving%20Interventional%20Treatment&rft.jtitle=Lung&rft.au=May,%20Nadine&rft.date=2020-02-01&rft.volume=198&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=221&rft.epage=228&rft.pages=221-228&rft.issn=0341-2040&rft.eissn=1432-1750&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00408-019-00303-7&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA614362616%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2336999185&rft_id=info:pmid/31832749&rft_galeid=A614362616&rfr_iscdi=true |