Unidirectional endobronchial valves for management of persistent air-leaks. Results of a multicenter study

Background: To evaluate the efficacy of Endo-Bronchial Valves in the management of persistent air-leaks (PALs) and the procedural cost. Methods: It was a retrospective multicenter study including consecutive patients with PALs for alveolar pleural fistula (APF) undergoing valve treatment. We assessed the efficacy and the cost of the procedure. Results: Seventy-four patients with persistent air leaks due to various etiologies were included in the analysis. In all cases the air leaks were severe and refractory to standard treatments. Sixty-seven (91%) patients underwent valve treatment obtaining a complete resolution of air-leaks in 59 (88%) patients; a reduction of air-leaks in 6 (9%); and no benefits in 2 (3%). The comparison of data before and after valve treatment showed a significant reduction of air-leak duration (16.2±8.8 versus 5.0±1.7 days; P<0.0001); chest tube removal (16.2±8.8 versus 7.3±2.7 days; P<0.0001); and length of hospital stay (LOS) (16.2±8.8 versus 9.7±2.8 days; P=0.004). Seven patients not undergoing valve treatment underwent pneumo-peritoneum with pleurodesis (n=6) or only pleurodesis (n=1). In only 1 (14%) patient, the chest drainage was removed 23 days later while the remaining 6 (86%) were discharged with a domiciliary chest drainage removed after 157±41 days. No significant difference was found in health cost before and after endobronchial valve (EBV) implant (P=0.3). Conclusions: Valve treatment for persistent air leaks is an effective procedure. The reduction of hospitalization costs related to early resolution of air-leaks could overcome the procedural cost

External Validation of a Prognostic Score for Survival in Lung Carcinoids

Background: A prognostic score including T-dimension, age, histology and lymph node ratio was previously proposed in absence of an external validation dataset. The aim of the current study was to validate the proposed prognostic score using an independent dataset. Methods: Data of patients with lung carcinoids, who underwent surgical resection and lymphadenectomy in five institutions from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2019, were retrospectively analyzed. Two risk groups were created based on the following data: age, histology, node ratio and pT for disease-free survival (DFS); age, sex, node ratio and pT for overall survival (OS). The previously proposed score was validated, identifying two groups of patients: a high risk (HRG) and low risk (LRG) group. Results: The final analysis was conducted on 283 patients. Regarding DFS, 230 (81.3%) patients were assigned to the LRG and 53 (18.7%) to the HRG. Considering OS, 268 (94.7%) were allocated in the LRG and 15 (5.3%) in the HRG. The 5-year DFS was 92.7% in the LRG vs. 67% in the HRG (p &lt; 0.001) while the 5-year OS was 93.6% in the LRG vs. 86.2% in the HRG (p = 0.29) with clear curve separation. Conclusion: Our analysis confirmed the validity of the composite score for DFS in lung carcinoids. Regarding OS, statistical significance was not reached because of a low number of deaths and patients in the HRG

Complications related to endoscopic lung volume reduction for emphysema with endobronchial valves: Results of a multicenter study

Despite bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with valves is a minimally invasive treatment for emphysema, it can associate with some complications. We aimed at evaluating the rate and type of complications related to valve treatment and their impact on clinical outcomes.Background: Despite bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with valves is a minimally invasive treatment for emphysema, it can associate with some complications. We aimed at evaluating the rate and type of complications related to valve treatment and their impact on clinical outcomes. Methods: It is a retrospective multicenter study including all consecutive patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema undergoing BLVR with endobronchial valve treatment and developed any complications related to this procedure. The type of complication, the time of onset, the treatment required and the out-come were evaluated. Response to treatment was assessed according to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) as follows: an improvement of ≥15% in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1); of −8% in residual volume (RV); of ≥26 m in 6-minnute walking distance (6MWD); and of ≥4 points on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Target lobe volume reduction (TLVR) ≥350 mL was considered significant. Results: One hundred and seven out of 423 (25.3%) treated patients had complications related to valve treatment including pneumothorax (17.3%); pneumonia (1.7%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation (0.9%), respiratory failure (1.4%), valve migration (2.1%), and hemoptysis (1.9%). In all cases complications resolved with appropriate treatment including removal of valves in 21/107 cases (19.6%). Patients with TLVR ≥350 mL (n=64) vs. those &lt;350 mL (n=43) had a statistically significant higher improvement in FEV1 (19.0%±3.9% vs. 3.0%±0.9%; P=0.0003); in RV (−10.0%±4.8% vs. −4.0%±2.9%; P=0.002); in 6MWD (33.0±19.0 vs. 12.0±6.3 metres; P=0.001); and in SGRQ (−15.0±2.9 vs. −8.0±3.5 points; P=0.01). Only patients with TLVR ≥350 mL met or exceeded the MCID cut-off criteria for FEV1 (19.0%±3.9%), RV (−10.0%±4.8%), 6MWT (33.0±19.0 metres), and SGQR (−15.0±2.9 points). Five patients (1.2%) died during follow-up for causes not related to valves treatment neither to any of the complications described. Conclusions: Valve treatment is a safe and reversible procedure. The presence of complications seems not to have a significant impact on clinical outcome in patients with lobar atelectasis. Due to poor clinical conditions and possible complications, BLVR should be performed in high volume centers with a multidisciplinary approach