Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2024
Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Different Types of One-Way Valves in Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction in Patients with Severe Lung Emphysema.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Sgarbossa Thomas, Borchers Philipp, Saccomanno Jacopo, Ahrens Katharina, Wüstefeld Hannah Friederike, Pappe Eva, Wuelfing Uta, Klein Ulrich, Witzenrath Martin, Stanzel Franz, Grah Christian, Hübner Ralf-Harto
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) with valves is an effective intervention in patients with severe lung emphysema. Two types of valves are established in clinical practice: Zephyr endobronchial valves (EBVs) and Spiration Valve System (SVS). We aimed to compare outcomes and the safety associated with these two types of one-way valves.
METHODS: Data were collected from three German lung emphysema centers as part of a prospective observational study focusing on lung volume reduction. Two groups were formed based on valve types. In both groups, lung function (FEV1, RV, diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, pCO2), 6-min walking distance (6MWD), quality of life (SGRQ, mMRC, CAT), and complication rate were recorded at baseline and at follow-up 3 to 6 months later.
RESULTS: A total of 54 patients were treated with SVS valves and 99 patients with EBV. There were no significant differences between both groups at baseline. Notably, both types of valves exhibited significant enhancements in lung function and quality of life. Interestingly, there were no significant differences in the median change of all measured parameters for both groups, suggesting comparable improvements in EBV and SVS. Pneumothorax was the most common complication for both valve types. The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between groups.
CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that both types of valves are safe and effective in the treatment of severe lung emphysema. We recommend choosing the valve type based on individual bronchial anatomy. However, further randomized studies are needed to confirm our results.
METHODS: Data were collected from three German lung emphysema centers as part of a prospective observational study focusing on lung volume reduction. Two groups were formed based on valve types. In both groups, lung function (FEV1, RV, diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, pCO2), 6-min walking distance (6MWD), quality of life (SGRQ, mMRC, CAT), and complication rate were recorded at baseline and at follow-up 3 to 6 months later.
RESULTS: A total of 54 patients were treated with SVS valves and 99 patients with EBV. There were no significant differences between both groups at baseline. Notably, both types of valves exhibited significant enhancements in lung function and quality of life. Interestingly, there were no significant differences in the median change of all measured parameters for both groups, suggesting comparable improvements in EBV and SVS. Pneumothorax was the most common complication for both valve types. The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between groups.
CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that both types of valves are safe and effective in the treatment of severe lung emphysema. We recommend choosing the valve type based on individual bronchial anatomy. However, further randomized studies are needed to confirm our results.