Sachdeva, Ashutosh

Abstract Rationale Follow-up of patients with emphysema treated with endobronchial valves is limited to 3–12 months after treatment in prior reports. To date, no comparative data exist between treatment and control subjects with a longer follow-up. Objectives To assess the durability of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) in patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema over a 24-month period. Methods EMPROVE, a multicenter randomized controlled trial, presents a rigorous comparison between treatment and control groups for up to 24 months. Lung function, respiratory symptoms, and quality-of-life (QOL) measures were assessed. Results A significant improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second was maintained at 24 months in the SVS treatment group versus the control group. Similarly, significant improvements were maintained in several QOL measures, including the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and the COPD Assessment Test. Patients in the SVS treatment group experienced significantly less dyspnea than those in the control group, as indicated by the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score. Adverse events at 24 months did not significantly differ between the SVS treatment and control groups. Acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation rates in the SVS treatment and control groups were 13.7% (14 of 102) and 15.6% (7 of 45), respectively. Pneumothorax rates in the SVS treatment and control groups were 1.0% (1 of 102) and 0.0% (0 of 45), respectively. Conclusions SVS treatment resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful durable improvements in lung function, respiratory symptoms, and QOL, as well as a statistically significant reduction in dyspnea, for at least 24 months while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01812447).

Abstract Background The impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic extends beyond the realms of patient care and healthcare resource use to include medical education; however, the repercussions of COVID-19 on the quality of training and trainee perceptions have yet to be explored. Objective The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of interventional pulmonology (IP) fellows’ involvement in the care of COVID-19 and its impact on fellows’ clinical education, procedure skills, and postgraduation employment search. Methods An internet-based survey was validated and distributed among IP fellows in North American fellowship training programs. Results Of 40 eligible fellows, 38 (95%) completed the survey. A majority of fellows (76%) reported involvement in the care of patients with COVID-19. Fellows training in the Northeast United States reported involvement in the care of a higher number of patients with COVID-19 than in other regions (median, 30 [interquartile range, 20–50] vs. 10 [5–13], respectively; P < 0.01). Fifty-two percent of fellows reported redeployment outside IP during COVID-19, mostly into intensive care units. IP procedure volume decreased by 21% during COVID-19 compared with pre–COVID-19 volume. This decrease was mainly accounted for by a reduction in bronchoscopies. A majority of fellows (82%) reported retainment of outpatient clinics during COVID-19 with the transition from face-to-face to telehealth-predominant format. Continuation of academic and research activities during COVID-19 was reported by 86% and 82% of fellows, respectively. After graduation, all fellows reported having secured employment positions. Conclusion Although IP fellows were extensively involved in the care of patients with COVID-19, most IP programs retained educational activities through the COVID-19 outbreak. The impact of the decrease in procedure volume on trainee competency would be best addressed individually within each training program. These data may assist in focusing efforts regarding the education of medical trainees during the current and future healthcare crises.

Abstract Rationale Less invasive, nonsurgical approaches are needed to treat severe emphysema. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) versus optimal medical management. Methods In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, subjects aged 40 years or older with severe, heterogeneous emphysema were randomized 2:1 to SVS with medical management (treatment) or medical management alone (control). Measurements and Main Results The primary efficacy outcome was the difference in mean FEV1 from baseline to 6 months. Secondary effectiveness outcomes included: difference in FEV1 responder rates, target lobe volume reduction, hyperinflation, health status, dyspnea, and exercise capacity. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of composite thoracic serious adverse events. All analyses were conducted by determining the 95% Bayesian credible intervals (BCIs) for the difference between treatment and control arms. Between October 2013 and May 2017, 172 participants (53.5% male; mean age, 67.4 yr) were randomized to treatment (n = 113) or control (n = 59). Mean FEV1 showed statistically significant improvements between the treatment and control groups—between-group difference at 6 and 12 months, respectively, of 0.101 L (95% BCI, 0.060–0.141) and 0.099 L (95% BCI, 0.048–0.151). At 6 months, the treatment group had statistically significant improvements in all secondary endpoints except 6-minute-walk distance. Composite thoracic serious adverse event incidence through 6 months was greater in the treatment group (31.0% vs. 11.9%), primarily due to a 12.4% incidence of serious pneumothorax. Conclusions In patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema, the SVS shows significant improvement in multiple efficacy outcomes, with an acceptable safety profile. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01812447).