ERJ open research · 2025
Clinical improvements after endoscopic lung volume reduction with valves in patients with advanced emphysema and a 6-min walk test ≤140 m at baseline.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Saccomanno Jacopo, Kilic Lara, Sgarbossa Thomas, Neumann Konrad, Stanzel Franz, Holland Angelique, Grah Christian, Gesierich Wolfgang, Krist Joanna, Ficker Joachim H, Eggeling Stephan, Andreas Stefan, Schmidt Bernd, Eisenmann Stephan, Schwick Björn, Franke Karl-Josef, Fertl Andreas, Witzenrath Martin, Hübner Ralf-Harto
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Data regarding the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic lung volume reduction with valves (ELVR) in emphysema patients with a very low 6-min walk test (6MWT) are limited. Patients with severe emphysema and very low exercise capacity, as indicated by a 6MWT ≤140 m, are often excluded from clinical studies on ELVR, assuming limited therapeutic benefits and increased complication risk.
STUDY DESIGNS AND METHODS: This study utilised data from the Lungenemphysemregister e.V., a large German national multi-centre prospective open-label clinical trial, and aimed to assess the outcomes of ELVR in patients with a baseline 6MWT ≤140 m and dyspnoea primarily attributed to hyperinflation.
RESULTS: 54 patients with a baseline 6MWT ≤140 m and 365 patients with a baseline 6MWT between 140 and 450 m were included in the study. Baseline characteristics were representative for patients with advanced lung emphysema. Patients with a 6MWT ≤140 m at baseline had a lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide and higher symptom burden. In the 3-month follow-up, patients of both groups showed statistically significant improvements in lung function parameters, exercise capacity and quality of life parameters compared to baseline. Patients with a 6MWT ≤140 m at baseline showed significantly more 6MWT improvement compared to patients with baseline 6MWT between 140 and 450 m. Moreover, complication rates were similar in both groups.
INTERPRETATION: In summary, the data indicate that ELVR may be an effective and safe treatment for emphysema patients with a very low 6MWT of ≤140 m if very limited exercise capacity is predominately caused by lung emphysema. Therefore future studies should include emphysema patients with a very low 6MWT.
STUDY DESIGNS AND METHODS: This study utilised data from the Lungenemphysemregister e.V., a large German national multi-centre prospective open-label clinical trial, and aimed to assess the outcomes of ELVR in patients with a baseline 6MWT ≤140 m and dyspnoea primarily attributed to hyperinflation.
RESULTS: 54 patients with a baseline 6MWT ≤140 m and 365 patients with a baseline 6MWT between 140 and 450 m were included in the study. Baseline characteristics were representative for patients with advanced lung emphysema. Patients with a 6MWT ≤140 m at baseline had a lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide and higher symptom burden. In the 3-month follow-up, patients of both groups showed statistically significant improvements in lung function parameters, exercise capacity and quality of life parameters compared to baseline. Patients with a 6MWT ≤140 m at baseline showed significantly more 6MWT improvement compared to patients with baseline 6MWT between 140 and 450 m. Moreover, complication rates were similar in both groups.
INTERPRETATION: In summary, the data indicate that ELVR may be an effective and safe treatment for emphysema patients with a very low 6MWT of ≤140 m if very limited exercise capacity is predominately caused by lung emphysema. Therefore future studies should include emphysema patients with a very low 6MWT.