Blog
About

11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction by endobronchial valve in advanced emphysema: the first Asian report

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Endobronchial valve (EBV) therapy is increasingly being seen as a therapeutic option for advanced emphysema, but its clinical utility in Asian populations, who may have different phenotypes to other ethnic populations, has not been assessed.

          Patients and methods

          This prospective open-label single-arm clinical trial examined the clinical efficacy and the safety of EBV in 43 consecutive patients (mean age 68.4±7.5, forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV 1] 24.5%±10.7% predicted, residual volume 208.7%±47.9% predicted) with severe emphysema with complete fissure and no collateral ventilation in a tertiary referral hospital in Korea.

          Results

          Compared to baseline, the patients exhibited significant improvements 6 months after EBV therapy in terms of FEV 1 (from 0.68±0.26 L to 0.92±0.40 L; P<0.001), 6-minute walk distance (from 233.5±114.8 m to 299.6±87.5 m; P=0.012), modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (from 3.7±0.6 to 2.4±1.2; P<0.001), and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (from 65.59±13.07 to 53.76±11.40; P=0.028). Nine patients (20.9%) had a tuberculosis scar, but these scars did not affect target lobe volume reduction or pneumothorax frequency. Thirteen patients had adverse events, ten (23.3%) developed pneumothorax, which included one death due to tension pneumothorax.

          Conclusion

          EBV therapy was as effective and safe in Korean patients as it has been shown to be in Western countries. (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01869205).

          Related collections

          Most cited references 29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in non-smokers.

          Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Tobacco smoking is established as a major risk factor, but emerging evidence suggests that other risk factors are important, especially in developing countries. An estimated 25-45% of patients with COPD have never smoked; the burden of non-smoking COPD is therefore much higher than previously believed. About 3 billion people, half the worldwide population, are exposed to smoke from biomass fuel compared with 1.01 billion people who smoke tobacco, which suggests that exposure to biomass smoke might be the biggest risk factor for COPD globally. We review the evidence for the association of COPD with biomass fuel, occupational exposure to dusts and gases, history of pulmonary tuberculosis, chronic asthma, respiratory-tract infections during childhood, outdoor air pollution, and poor socioeconomic status.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            An official American Thoracic Society public policy statement: Novel risk factors and the global burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

            Although cigarette smoking is the most important cause of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a substantial proportion of COPD cases cannot be explained by smoking alone. To evaluate the risk factors for COPD besides personal cigarette smoking. We constituted an ad hoc subcommittee of the American Thoracic Society Environmental and Occupational Health Assembly. An international group of members was invited, based on their scientific expertise in a specific risk factor for COPD. For each risk factor area, the committee reviewed the literature, summarized the evidence, and developed conclusions about the likelihood of it causing COPD. All conclusions were based on unanimous consensus. The population-attributable fraction for smoking as a cause of COPD ranged from 9.7 to 97.9%, but was less than 80% in most studies, indicating a substantial burden of disease attributable to nonsmoking risk factors. On the basis of our review, we concluded that specific genetic syndromes and occupational exposures were causally related to the development of COPD. Traffic and other outdoor pollution, secondhand smoke, biomass smoke, and dietary factors are associated with COPD, but sufficient criteria for causation were not met. Chronic asthma and tuberculosis are associated with irreversible loss of lung function, but there remains uncertainty about whether there are important phenotypic differences compared with COPD as it is typically encountered in clinical settings. In public health terms, a substantive burden of COPD is attributable to risk factors other than smoking. To prevent COPD-related disability and mortality, efforts must focus on prevention and cessation of exposure to smoking and these other, less well-recognized risk factors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire: MCID.

              The SGRQ is a disease-specific measure of health status for use in COPD. A number of methods have been used for estimating its minimum clinically important difference (MCID). These include both expert and patient preference-based estimates. Anchor-based methods have also been used. The calculated MCID from those studies was consistently around 4 units, regardless of assessment method. By contrast, the MCID calculated using distribution-based methods varied across studies and permitted no consistent estimate. All measurements of clinical significance contain sample and measurement error. They also require value judgements, if not about the calculation of the MCID itself then about the anchors used to estimate it. Under these circumstances, greater weight should be placed upon the overall body of evidence for an MCID, rather than one single method. For that reason, estimates of MCID should be used as indicative values. Methods of analysing clinical trial results should reflect this, and use appropriate statistical tests for comparison with the MCID. Treatments for COPD that produced an improvement in SGRQ of the order of 4 units in clinical trials have subsequently found wide acceptance once in clinical practice, so it seems reasonable to expect any new treatment proposed for COPD to produce an advantage over placebo that is not significantly inferior to a 4-unit difference.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                International Journal of COPD
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-9106
                1178-2005
                2015
                29 July 2015
                : 10
                : 1501-1511
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Clinical Research Center for Chronic Obstructive Airway Diseases, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                [2 ]Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Korea
                [3 ]Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Sei Won Lee, Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Clinical Research Center for Chronic Obstructive Airway Diseases, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Korea, Tel +82 2 3010 3990, Fax +82 2 3010 6968, Email iseiwon@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                copd-10-1501
                10.2147/COPD.S85744
                4524390
                © 2015 Park et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License

                The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article