Lung volume reduction surgery vs medical treatment: for patients with advanced emphysema

To contribute to the knowledge on the therapeutic value of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS). Two similar, independently conceived and conducted, multicenter, randomized clinical trials. The Canadian Lung Volume Reduction (CLVR) study and the Overholt-Blue Cross Emphysema Surgery Trial (OBEST). U...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Chest 2005-04, Vol.127 (4), p.1166-1177
Hauptverfasser: Miller, John D, Berger, Robert L, Malthaner, Richard A, Celli, Bartolome R, Goldsmith, Charles H, Ingenito, Edward P, Higgins, David, Bagley, Peter, Cox, Gerard, Wright, Cameron D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1177
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1166
container_title Chest
container_volume 127
creator Miller, John D
Berger, Robert L
Malthaner, Richard A
Celli, Bartolome R
Goldsmith, Charles H
Ingenito, Edward P
Higgins, David
Bagley, Peter
Cox, Gerard
Wright, Cameron D
description To contribute to the knowledge on the therapeutic value of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS). Two similar, independently conceived and conducted, multicenter, randomized clinical trials. The Canadian Lung Volume Reduction (CLVR) study and the Overholt-Blue Cross Emphysema Surgery Trial (OBEST). Using a fixed-effects meta-analysis, the 6-month results produced by the addition of LVRS to optimal medical therapy were compared to those obtained from optimal medical therapy alone. Patients were required to have severe emphysema, marked airflow limitation (ie, FEV(1), 15 to 40% predicted), hyperinflation (total lung capacity [TLC], > 120% predicted), CO(2), < 55 mm Hg, and measurable dyspnea (chronic respiratory disease questionnaire [CRDQ] scores /= 1 for the OBEST). Optimal medical therapy included pulmonary rehabilitation in both arms of both studies. The CLVR study randomized 58 patients and the OBEST randomized 35 patients for a total of 93 patients. Of these, 54 patients were randomized to undergo surgery, and 39 patients were randomized to receive medical treatment. The 6-month mortality rate (including operative mortality) in the surgical and medical cohorts was similar (5.6% vs 5.1%, respectively). A comparison of the medical and surgical arms of the combined CLVR study/OBEST population showed that LVRS was associated with a higher FEV(1) (167 mL or 24% predicted; 95% confidence interval [CI], 29 to 304; p = 0.017), lower residual volume (-1,342 mL or 24.5% predicted; 95% CI, -1,844 to -840; p < 0.001), lower TLC (-1,044 mL or 13% predicted; 95% CI, -1483 to -605; p < 0.001), and higher 6-min walk distance (148.8 feet; 95% CI, 24.3 to 273.2; p = 0.019). Each domain of the CRDQ showed statistically significant improvement in the surgical arm of the study, but not in the medical arm. The summary physical component scale of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form (SF-36) was also more favorable in the LVRS cohort (6.9; 95% CI, 2.86 to 10.90; p < 0.001). The summary mental component scale of the SF-36 did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Six months after randomization, LVRS produced better palliation than optimal medical therapy in patients with advanced emphysema.
doi_str_mv 10.1378/chest.127.4.1166
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67726827</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>67726827</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c277t-b39809a562bc6a630b00199348e61d8aaeca3fb55db507b33595001aa69f8e93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkEtLAzEURoMoWqt7VxJcuJsxj0kycSfFFxTcdOEuZDJ32inzqMlMpf_e1BYEV_d-cO7l4yB0Q0lKucof3ArCkFKm0iylVMoTNKGa04SLjJ-iCSGUJVxqdoEuQ1iTmKmW5-iCipzFlU7Q53zslnjbN2ML2EM5uqHuOxxGvwS_w9uAWyhrZxs8eLBDC93wiKve440d6hgC_q6HFbbl1nYOSgztZrUL0NordFbZJsD1cU7R4uV5MXtL5h-v77OneeKYUkNScJ0TbYVkhZNWclLEklrzLAdJy9xacJZXhRBlIYgqOBdaRMJaqascNJ-i-8Pbje-_xmjDtHVw0DS2g34MRirFZM5UBO_-get-9F2sZhghmRIs5xEiB8j5PgQPldn4urV-Zygxe-Pm17iJxk1m9sbjye3x71hEVX8HR8X8B6K-fZ8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>200475283</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Lung volume reduction surgery vs medical treatment: for patients with advanced emphysema</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Miller, John D ; Berger, Robert L ; Malthaner, Richard A ; Celli, Bartolome R ; Goldsmith, Charles H ; Ingenito, Edward P ; Higgins, David ; Bagley, Peter ; Cox, Gerard ; Wright, Cameron D</creator><creatorcontrib>Miller, John D ; Berger, Robert L ; Malthaner, Richard A ; Celli, Bartolome R ; Goldsmith, Charles H ; Ingenito, Edward P ; Higgins, David ; Bagley, Peter ; Cox, Gerard ; Wright, Cameron D</creatorcontrib><description>To contribute to the knowledge on the therapeutic value of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS). Two similar, independently conceived and conducted, multicenter, randomized clinical trials. The Canadian Lung Volume Reduction (CLVR) study and the Overholt-Blue Cross Emphysema Surgery Trial (OBEST). Using a fixed-effects meta-analysis, the 6-month results produced by the addition of LVRS to optimal medical therapy were compared to those obtained from optimal medical therapy alone. Patients were required to have severe emphysema, marked airflow limitation (ie, FEV(1), 15 to 40% predicted), hyperinflation (total lung capacity [TLC], &gt; 120% predicted), CO(2), &lt; 55 mm Hg, and measurable dyspnea (chronic respiratory disease questionnaire [CRDQ] scores &lt;/= 4 for the CLVR study, or Medical Research Council dyspnea scale &gt;/= 1 for the OBEST). Optimal medical therapy included pulmonary rehabilitation in both arms of both studies. The CLVR study randomized 58 patients and the OBEST randomized 35 patients for a total of 93 patients. Of these, 54 patients were randomized to undergo surgery, and 39 patients were randomized to receive medical treatment. The 6-month mortality rate (including operative mortality) in the surgical and medical cohorts was similar (5.6% vs 5.1%, respectively). A comparison of the medical and surgical arms of the combined CLVR study/OBEST population showed that LVRS was associated with a higher FEV(1) (167 mL or 24% predicted; 95% confidence interval [CI], 29 to 304; p = 0.017), lower residual volume (-1,342 mL or 24.5% predicted; 95% CI, -1,844 to -840; p &lt; 0.001), lower TLC (-1,044 mL or 13% predicted; 95% CI, -1483 to -605; p &lt; 0.001), and higher 6-min walk distance (148.8 feet; 95% CI, 24.3 to 273.2; p = 0.019). Each domain of the CRDQ showed statistically significant improvement in the surgical arm of the study, but not in the medical arm. The summary physical component scale of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form (SF-36) was also more favorable in the LVRS cohort (6.9; 95% CI, 2.86 to 10.90; p &lt; 0.001). The summary mental component scale of the SF-36 did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Six months after randomization, LVRS produced better palliation than optimal medical therapy in patients with advanced emphysema.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-3692</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1931-3543</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1378/chest.127.4.1166</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15821191</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CHETBF</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American College of Chest Physicians</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Disease Progression ; Exercise Tolerance ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pneumonectomy ; Pulmonary Emphysema - physiopathology ; Pulmonary Emphysema - surgery ; Time Factors</subject><ispartof>Chest, 2005-04, Vol.127 (4), p.1166-1177</ispartof><rights>Copyright American College of Chest Physicians Apr 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15821191$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Miller, John D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berger, Robert L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malthaner, Richard A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Celli, Bartolome R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldsmith, Charles H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ingenito, Edward P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Higgins, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bagley, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cox, Gerard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wright, Cameron D</creatorcontrib><title>Lung volume reduction surgery vs medical treatment: for patients with advanced emphysema</title><title>Chest</title><addtitle>Chest</addtitle><description>To contribute to the knowledge on the therapeutic value of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS). Two similar, independently conceived and conducted, multicenter, randomized clinical trials. The Canadian Lung Volume Reduction (CLVR) study and the Overholt-Blue Cross Emphysema Surgery Trial (OBEST). Using a fixed-effects meta-analysis, the 6-month results produced by the addition of LVRS to optimal medical therapy were compared to those obtained from optimal medical therapy alone. Patients were required to have severe emphysema, marked airflow limitation (ie, FEV(1), 15 to 40% predicted), hyperinflation (total lung capacity [TLC], &gt; 120% predicted), CO(2), &lt; 55 mm Hg, and measurable dyspnea (chronic respiratory disease questionnaire [CRDQ] scores &lt;/= 4 for the CLVR study, or Medical Research Council dyspnea scale &gt;/= 1 for the OBEST). Optimal medical therapy included pulmonary rehabilitation in both arms of both studies. The CLVR study randomized 58 patients and the OBEST randomized 35 patients for a total of 93 patients. Of these, 54 patients were randomized to undergo surgery, and 39 patients were randomized to receive medical treatment. The 6-month mortality rate (including operative mortality) in the surgical and medical cohorts was similar (5.6% vs 5.1%, respectively). A comparison of the medical and surgical arms of the combined CLVR study/OBEST population showed that LVRS was associated with a higher FEV(1) (167 mL or 24% predicted; 95% confidence interval [CI], 29 to 304; p = 0.017), lower residual volume (-1,342 mL or 24.5% predicted; 95% CI, -1,844 to -840; p &lt; 0.001), lower TLC (-1,044 mL or 13% predicted; 95% CI, -1483 to -605; p &lt; 0.001), and higher 6-min walk distance (148.8 feet; 95% CI, 24.3 to 273.2; p = 0.019). Each domain of the CRDQ showed statistically significant improvement in the surgical arm of the study, but not in the medical arm. The summary physical component scale of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form (SF-36) was also more favorable in the LVRS cohort (6.9; 95% CI, 2.86 to 10.90; p &lt; 0.001). The summary mental component scale of the SF-36 did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Six months after randomization, LVRS produced better palliation than optimal medical therapy in patients with advanced emphysema.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Disease Progression</subject><subject>Exercise Tolerance</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Pneumonectomy</subject><subject>Pulmonary Emphysema - physiopathology</subject><subject>Pulmonary Emphysema - surgery</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><issn>0012-3692</issn><issn>1931-3543</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkEtLAzEURoMoWqt7VxJcuJsxj0kycSfFFxTcdOEuZDJ32inzqMlMpf_e1BYEV_d-cO7l4yB0Q0lKucof3ArCkFKm0iylVMoTNKGa04SLjJ-iCSGUJVxqdoEuQ1iTmKmW5-iCipzFlU7Q53zslnjbN2ML2EM5uqHuOxxGvwS_w9uAWyhrZxs8eLBDC93wiKve440d6hgC_q6HFbbl1nYOSgztZrUL0NordFbZJsD1cU7R4uV5MXtL5h-v77OneeKYUkNScJ0TbYVkhZNWclLEklrzLAdJy9xacJZXhRBlIYgqOBdaRMJaqascNJ-i-8Pbje-_xmjDtHVw0DS2g34MRirFZM5UBO_-get-9F2sZhghmRIs5xEiB8j5PgQPldn4urV-Zygxe-Pm17iJxk1m9sbjye3x71hEVX8HR8X8B6K-fZ8</recordid><startdate>20050401</startdate><enddate>20050401</enddate><creator>Miller, John D</creator><creator>Berger, Robert L</creator><creator>Malthaner, Richard A</creator><creator>Celli, Bartolome R</creator><creator>Goldsmith, Charles H</creator><creator>Ingenito, Edward P</creator><creator>Higgins, David</creator><creator>Bagley, Peter</creator><creator>Cox, Gerard</creator><creator>Wright, Cameron D</creator><general>American College of Chest Physicians</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050401</creationdate><title>Lung volume reduction surgery vs medical treatment: for patients with advanced emphysema</title><author>Miller, John D ; Berger, Robert L ; Malthaner, Richard A ; Celli, Bartolome R ; Goldsmith, Charles H ; Ingenito, Edward P ; Higgins, David ; Bagley, Peter ; Cox, Gerard ; Wright, Cameron D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c277t-b39809a562bc6a630b00199348e61d8aaeca3fb55db507b33595001aa69f8e93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Disease Progression</topic><topic>Exercise Tolerance</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Pneumonectomy</topic><topic>Pulmonary Emphysema - physiopathology</topic><topic>Pulmonary Emphysema - surgery</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Miller, John D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berger, Robert L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malthaner, Richard A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Celli, Bartolome R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldsmith, Charles H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ingenito, Edward P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Higgins, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bagley, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cox, Gerard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wright, Cameron D</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Chest</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Miller, John D</au><au>Berger, Robert L</au><au>Malthaner, Richard A</au><au>Celli, Bartolome R</au><au>Goldsmith, Charles H</au><au>Ingenito, Edward P</au><au>Higgins, David</au><au>Bagley, Peter</au><au>Cox, Gerard</au><au>Wright, Cameron D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Lung volume reduction surgery vs medical treatment: for patients with advanced emphysema</atitle><jtitle>Chest</jtitle><addtitle>Chest</addtitle><date>2005-04-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>127</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1166</spage><epage>1177</epage><pages>1166-1177</pages><issn>0012-3692</issn><eissn>1931-3543</eissn><coden>CHETBF</coden><abstract>To contribute to the knowledge on the therapeutic value of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS). Two similar, independently conceived and conducted, multicenter, randomized clinical trials. The Canadian Lung Volume Reduction (CLVR) study and the Overholt-Blue Cross Emphysema Surgery Trial (OBEST). Using a fixed-effects meta-analysis, the 6-month results produced by the addition of LVRS to optimal medical therapy were compared to those obtained from optimal medical therapy alone. Patients were required to have severe emphysema, marked airflow limitation (ie, FEV(1), 15 to 40% predicted), hyperinflation (total lung capacity [TLC], &gt; 120% predicted), CO(2), &lt; 55 mm Hg, and measurable dyspnea (chronic respiratory disease questionnaire [CRDQ] scores &lt;/= 4 for the CLVR study, or Medical Research Council dyspnea scale &gt;/= 1 for the OBEST). Optimal medical therapy included pulmonary rehabilitation in both arms of both studies. The CLVR study randomized 58 patients and the OBEST randomized 35 patients for a total of 93 patients. Of these, 54 patients were randomized to undergo surgery, and 39 patients were randomized to receive medical treatment. The 6-month mortality rate (including operative mortality) in the surgical and medical cohorts was similar (5.6% vs 5.1%, respectively). A comparison of the medical and surgical arms of the combined CLVR study/OBEST population showed that LVRS was associated with a higher FEV(1) (167 mL or 24% predicted; 95% confidence interval [CI], 29 to 304; p = 0.017), lower residual volume (-1,342 mL or 24.5% predicted; 95% CI, -1,844 to -840; p &lt; 0.001), lower TLC (-1,044 mL or 13% predicted; 95% CI, -1483 to -605; p &lt; 0.001), and higher 6-min walk distance (148.8 feet; 95% CI, 24.3 to 273.2; p = 0.019). Each domain of the CRDQ showed statistically significant improvement in the surgical arm of the study, but not in the medical arm. The summary physical component scale of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form (SF-36) was also more favorable in the LVRS cohort (6.9; 95% CI, 2.86 to 10.90; p &lt; 0.001). The summary mental component scale of the SF-36 did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Six months after randomization, LVRS produced better palliation than optimal medical therapy in patients with advanced emphysema.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American College of Chest Physicians</pub><pmid>15821191</pmid><doi>10.1378/chest.127.4.1166</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0012-3692
ispartof Chest, 2005-04, Vol.127 (4), p.1166-1177
issn 0012-3692
1931-3543
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67726827
source MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Disease Progression
Exercise Tolerance
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Pneumonectomy
Pulmonary Emphysema - physiopathology
Pulmonary Emphysema - surgery
Time Factors
title Lung volume reduction surgery vs medical treatment: for patients with advanced emphysema
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T02%3A52%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Lung%20volume%20reduction%20surgery%20vs%20medical%20treatment:%20for%20patients%20with%20advanced%20emphysema&rft.jtitle=Chest&rft.au=Miller,%20John%20D&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=127&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1166&rft.epage=1177&rft.pages=1166-1177&rft.issn=0012-3692&rft.eissn=1931-3543&rft.coden=CHETBF&rft_id=info:doi/10.1378/chest.127.4.1166&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67726827%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=200475283&rft_id=info:pmid/15821191&rfr_iscdi=true