This Article Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Article Archive Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Reilly, J. Articles by Celli, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Reilly, J. Articles by Celli, B.

Biological Lung Volume Reduction^*A New Bronchoscopic Therapy for Advanced Emphysema

^* From the Pulmonary and Critical Care Division (Drs. Reilly and Washko), Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; the Department of Surgery (Dr. Berger), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; and Pulmonary Department (Drs. Pinto-Plata, Velez, Kenney, and Celli), Caritas-St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center, Boston, MA.

Correspondence to: John Reilly, MD, FCCP, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115-6110; e-mail: jreilly{at}partners.org

Abstract

Background: Biological lung volume reduction (BLVR) using biological reagents to remodel and shrink damaged regions of lung has previously been accomplished in sheep with experimental pulmonary emphysema. This report summarizes the initial clinical experience including a 3-month follow-up using this technique in humans.

Methods: An open-label phase 1 trial designed to evaluate the safety of BLVR in patients with advanced heterogeneous emphysema enrolled six patients. Of these, three patients received unilateral treatment at two pulmonary subsegments (group 1) and three patients received unilateral treatment at four pulmonary subsegments (group 2). The incidence of adverse events and changes in pulmonary function test results, symptoms, and exercise capacity were evaluated.

Results: The mean (± SD) age of the six men enrolled in the study was 66 ± 5.7 years (age range, 57 to 73 years). BLVR was well tolerated in both treatment groups and was not associated with any serious complications. All patients were discharged from the hospital on posttreatment day 1. Although the primary purpose of the study was to examine safety, improvements were observed in mean vital capacity (+7.2 ± 9.5%; range, –2% to + 19%), mean residual volume (RV) [–7.8 ± 8.5%; range, + 1% to –22%], mean RV/total lung capacity ratio (–6.6 ± 4.7%; range, –1% to –15%), mean 6-min walk distance (+14.5 ± 18.5%; range, 0 to + 51%), and in mean dyspnea score. On average, group 2 patients experienced greater benefit from BLVR than group 1 patients, suggesting a dose-response pattern.

Conclusions: Preliminary results indicate that BLVR can be safe and may produce benefits in appropriately selected patients with advanced heterogeneous emphysema.

Key Words: biological lung volume reduction • bronchoscopic lung volume reduction • COPD • emphysema • lung volume reduction surgery • pulmonary emphysema

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. R. Celli Update on the Management of COPD Chest, June 1, 2008; 133(6): 1451 - 1462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]