Chest ACCP Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (10)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miller, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Wright, C. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Miller, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Wright, C. D.
(Chest. 2005;127:1166-1177.)
© 2005 American College of Chest Physicians

Lung Volume Reduction Surgery vs Medical Treatment*

For Patients With Advanced Emphysema

John D. Miller, MD, FCCP; Robert L. Berger, MD; Richard A. Malthaner, MD, FCCP; Bartolome R. Celli, MD, FCCP; Charles H. Goldsmith, PhD; Edward P. Ingenito, MD, FCCP; David Higgins, MD; Peter Bagley, MD, FCCP; Gerard Cox, MB, FCCP and Cameron D. Wright, MD, FCCP{dagger}

* From McMaster University (Drs. Miller, Goldsmith, Higgins, and Cox), Hamilton, ON, Canada; the Harvard Medical School (Drs. Berger, Ingenito, and Wright), Boston, MA; the University of Western Ontario (Dr. Malthaner), London, ON, Canada; Tufts University School of Medicine (Dr. Celli), Boston, MA; and the University of Massachusetts School of Medicine (Dr. Bagley), Worcester, MA. {dagger} A list of centers and individuals participating in the CLVR-OBEST Study Group is located in the Appendix.

Correspondence to: Robert L. Berger, MD, 60 Heath St, Brookline, MA 02445; e-mail: robert_berger{at}hms.harvard.edu

Objective: To contribute to the knowledge on the therapeutic value of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS).

Design: Two similar, independently conceived and conducted, multicenter, randomized clinical trials.

Setting: The Canadian Lung Volume Reduction (CLVR) study and the Overholt-Blue Cross Emphysema Surgery Trial (OBEST).

Methods: 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, FEV1, 15 to 40% predicted), hyperinflation (total lung capacity [TLC], > 120% predicted), CO2, < 55 mm Hg, and measurable dyspnea (chronic respiratory disease questionnaire [CRDQ] scores ≤ 4 for the CLVR study, or Medical Research Council dyspnea scale ≥ 1 for the OBEST). Optimal medical therapy included pulmonary rehabilitation in both arms of both studies.

Results: 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 FEV1 (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.

Conclusion: Six months after randomization, LVRS produced better palliation than optimal medical therapy in patients with advanced emphysema.

Key Words: chronic obstructive lung disease • COPD • emphysema • lung volume reduction • pneumectomy • quality of life • randomized multicentered clinical trial • surgery






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American College of Chest Physicians.