Herth, Felix

Background: Careful selection of patients with expiratory central airway collapse (ECAC) that may benefit from tracheobronchoplasty (TBP) can be aided by a short-term airway stent evaluation. This can be performed with either silicone Y-stents (SYSs) or uncovered self-expanding metallic airway-stents (USEMAS). No direct comparison has been made between these 2 stent types. Methods: This was a small retrospective review of consecutive patients that underwent a stent evaluation. A propensity score was used to match patients in the USEMAS and SYS groups. Outcomes included complications, changes in the health-related quality-of-life (HR-QoL), and changes in exercise capacity. Baseline measurements were compared with those obtained during stent evaluation and after TBP. Results: Forty-two patients with severe ECAC underwent USEMAS placement, while 18 patients had an SYS placed. Propensity score matching resulted in 13 matched SYS and USEMAS pairs. The SYS group had an increased rate of mucus plugging (38.5% vs. 0%, P<0.047). Although not statically significant, a clinical improvement was observed in HR-QoL and exercise capacity in the USEMAS group during stent placement. In patients who underwent TBP, both USEMAS and SYS groups had a statistically significant change in the Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale during stent evaluation and after TBP. Conclusion: In patients with severe ECAC, short-term evaluation with airway stents appears to be safe and improves respiratory symptoms, HR-QoL, and exercise capacity. The use of USEMAS led to a lower complication rate, a greater improvement in HR-QoL and exercise capacity, and appeared to better predict how the patients would respond to TBP.

AbstractIntroductionBronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with endobronchial valves (EBVs) has emerged as an important treatment method for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are a frequent complication following BLVR with EBV. However, there is no consensus on the prevention of AECOPD.ObjectivesOur study aims to compare the outcomes of different prophylactic measures on the occurrence of AECOPD after BLVR with EBV.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of patients who underwent BLVR with EBV at six different institutions. Emphasis was directed towards the specific practices aimed at preventing AECOPD: antibiotics, steroids, antibiotics plus steroids, or no prophylaxis. Subgroups were compared, and odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.ResultsA total of 170 patients were reviewed. The rate of AECOPD was 21.2% for the full cohort. Patients who received prophylaxis had a significantly lower rate of AECOPD compared with those who did not (16.7% vs. 46.2%; p = 0.001). The rate was lowest in patients who received antibiotics alone (9.2%). There was no significant difference in the rate of AECOPD between patients who received steroids alone or antibiotics plus steroids, compared with the other subgroups. The OR for AECOPD was 4.3 (95% CI: 1.8–10.4; p = 0.001) for patients not receiving prophylaxis and 3.9 (95% CI: 1.5–10.1; p = 0.004) for prophylaxis other than antibiotics alone.ConclusionsAdministration of antibiotics after BLVR with EBV was associated with a lower rate of AECOPD. This was not observed with the use of steroids or in combination with antibiotics.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly have comorbidities which may impact both symptoms and prognosis. Endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) with endobronchial valves (EBV) is an innovative, effective and safe treatment for patients with severe emphysema who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy.ObjectivesTo evaluate medical comorbidities associated with increased risk of complications after EBV procedure.MethodThis was a retrospective cohort review of patients with severe, heterogeneous emphysema who underwent Zephyr® EBV installation for ELVR. Demographics, baseline comorbidities, dyspnea scores, data regarding procedure, pulmonary function test, minimal clinically important difference and post‐EBV complications were recorded.ResultsOf a total 82 participants, 24 were identified as having a post procedure complication. There was a significant difference in the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at baseline (25%) in complication group compared with non‐complication group (5.1%) (p value = 0.01). There was also a significant difference between baseline coronary artery disease (CAD) in those with (58.3%) or without (29.3%) complication (p = 0.01). Multivariate analysis of other covariables, identified associations of both CAD and T2DM with a heightened risk of complication (adjusted OR 4.19 CI: 1.23–14.2, p value = 0.02 and adjusted OR of 6.1 CI: 1.3–26.1, p value = 0.02 respectively).ConclusionsOur study found that patients with severe, heterogeneous emphysema who undergo ELVR utilizing Zephyr® EBV and suffer complications during post‐procedure period are more likely to have CAD or T2DM as baseline comorbidity. These data suggest that baseline CAD and T2DM might be predictive of increased risk of complications following ELVR with EBV.

Prediction models aim to use available data to predict a health state or outcome that has not yet been observed. Prediction is primarily relevant to clinical practice, but is also used in research, and administration. While prediction modeling involves estimating the relationship between patient factors and outcomes, it is distinct from casual inference. Prediction modeling thus requires unique considerations for development, validation, and updating. This document represents an effort from editors at 31 respiratory, sleep, and critical care medicine journals to consolidate contemporary best practices and recommendations related to prediction study design, conduct, and reporting. Herein, we address issues commonly encountered in submissions to our various journals. Key topics include considerations for selecting predictor variables, operationalizing variables, dealing with missing data, the importance of appropriate validation, model performance measures and their interpretation, and good reporting practices. Supplemental discussion covers emerging topics such as model fairness, competing risks, pitfalls of “modifiable risk factors”, measurement error, and risk for bias. This guidance is not meant to be overly prescriptive; we acknowledge that every study is different, and no set of rules will fit all cases. Additional best practices can be found in the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines, to which we refer readers for further details.

Abstract For over 150 years, bronchoscopy, especially flexible bronchoscopy, has been a mainstay for airway inspection, the diagnosis of airway lesions, therapeutic aspiration of airway secretions, and transbronchial biopsy to diagnose parenchymal lung disorders. Its utility for the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary nodules and therapeutic treatments besides aspiration of airway secretions, however, has been limited. Challenges to the wider use of flexible bronchoscopy have included difficulty in navigating to the lung periphery, the avoidance of vasculature structures when performing diagnostic biopsies, and the ability to biopsy a lesion under direct visualization. The last 10–15 years have seen major advances in thoracic imaging, navigational platforms to direct the bronchoscopist to lung lesions, and the ability to visualize lesions during biopsy. Moreover, multiple new techniques have either become recently available or are currently being investigated to treat a broad range of airway and lung parenchymal diseases, such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis, or to alleviate recurrent exacerbations. New bronchoscopic therapies are also being investigated to not only diagnose, but possibly treat, malignant peripheral lung nodules. As a result, flexible bronchoscopy is now able to provide a new and expanding armamentarium of diagnostic and therapeutic tools to treat patients with a variety of lung diseases. This State-of-the-Art review succinctly reviews these techniques and provides clinicians an organized approach to their role in the diagnosis and treatment of a range of lung diseases.

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).

AbstractBronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) is a minimally invasive procedure for patients with symptomatic severe emphysema who may not be candidates for surgical lung volume reduction. BLVR has been shown to improve both functional and clinical outcomes with a relatively low risk of severe complications. Any potential candidate to BLVR should be on optimal pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment. Radiographic and pulmonary function testing provide key data to help identify potential BLVR candidates. A variety of BLVR techniques have been published with different associated benefits and risks. Current strategies include either blocking procedures such as endobronchial valves and intrabronchial valves or nonblocking procedures such as endobronchial coils and bronchoscopic thermal vapor ablation. The aim of this review is to describe current options of BLVR including their efficacy and safety based on available data.