The minimal important difference of the constant work rate cycle test in severe COPD

Background: The Constant Work Rate Cycle Test (CWRT) is a commonly used and sensitive test to detect treatment success in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Earlier, the Minimal Important Difference (MID) of the CWRT was estimated at 101 s (or 34%) change from baseline based on one well executed study. However, this study was performed in a population of patients with mild-to-moderate COPD, and we have learned that MIDs might be quite different in patients with severe COPD. Therefore, we aimed to establish the MID of the CWRT in patients with severe COPD.Methods: We included 141 patients with severe COPD, who underwent either pulmonary rehabilitation, bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with endobronchial valves, or a sham bronchoscopy as a control group. CWRT workload was set at 75% of the peak work capacity, as determined by an incremental cycle test. We used the change in 6-min walking test (6-MWT), forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1), residual volume (RV), and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score as anchors to calculate the MID.Results: All anchors had an association of ≥0.41 with change in CWRT. The MID estimates for the different anchors were: 6-MWT 278 s (95%), FEV1 273 s (90%), RV 240 s (84%), and SGRQ 208 s (71%). The average of these four MID estimates resulted in an MID of 250 s (or 85%).Conclusion: We established the MID for CWRT at 250 s (or 85%) change from baseline in patients with severe COPD.</p

Survival in COPD patients treated with bronchoscopic lung volume reduction

Background and objective: Severe COPD patients can significantly benefit from bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) treatments with coils or endobronchial valves. However, the potential impact of BLVR on survival is less understood. Therefore, our aim was to investigate the survival rate in patients who are evaluated for BLVR treatment and whether there is a difference in survival rate between patients who undergo BLVR treatment and patients who do not. Methods: We included patients with COPD who visited our hospital for a consultation evaluating their eligibility for BLVR treatment and who performed pulmonary function tests during this visit. Furthermore, vital status was verified. Results: In total 1471 patients were included (63% female, mean age 61 years). A total of 531 patients (35%) died during follow-up and the median survival time of the total population was 2694 days (95% confidence interval(CI) 2462–2926) which is approximately 7.4 years. The median survival time of patients who were treated with BLVR was significantly longer compared to patients who were not treated with BLVR (3133 days versus 2503 days, p < 0.001), and BLVR was found to be an independent predictor of survival when adjusting for other survival-influencing factors such as age, gender or severity of disease. Conclusions: Our results suggest that bronchoscopically reducing lung volume in patients with severe hyperinflation may lead to a survival benefit for a population with a severely reduced life expectancy

Supplementary Material for: Identifying Responders and Exploring Mechanisms of Action of the Endobronchial Coil Treatment for Emphysema

Background: So far, 3 randomized controlled trials have shown that the endobronchial treatment using coils is safe and effective. However, the more exact underlying mechanism of the treatment and best predictors of response are unknown. Objectives: The aim of the study was to gain more knowledge about the underlying physiological mechanism of the lung volume reduction coil treatment and to identify potential predictors of response to this treatment. Methods: This was a prospective nonrandomized single-center study which included patients who were bilaterally treated with coils. Patients underwent an extensive number of physical tests at baseline and 3 months after treatment. Results: Twenty-four patients (29% male, mean age 62 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] 26% pred, residual volume (RV) 231% pred) were included. Three months after treatment, significant improvements were found in spirometry, static hyperinflation, air trapping, airway resistance, treated lobe RV and treated lobes air trapping measured on CT scan, exercise capacity, and quality of life. The change in RV and airway resistance was significantly associated with a change in FEV1, forced vital capacity, air trapping, maximal expiratory pressure, dynamic compliance, and dynamic hyperinflation. Predictors of treatment response at baseline were a higher RV, larger air trapping, higher emphysema score in the treated lobes, and a lower physical activity level. Conclusions: Our results confirm that emphysema patients benefit from endobronchial coil treatment. The primary mechanism of action is decreasing static hyperinflation with improvement of airway resistance which consequently changes dynamic lung mechanics. However, the right patient population needs to be selected for the treatment to be beneficial which should include patients with severe lung hyperinflation, severe air trapping, and significant emphysema in target lobes