+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Coil therapy for patients with severe emphysema and bilateral incomplete fissures – effectiveness and complications after 1-year follow-up: a single-center experience

      Read this article at

          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.



          Lung volume reduction coil (LVRC) treatment is established in daily endoscopic lung volume reduction routine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LVRC treatment.

          Patients and methods

          This was a retrospective analysis of 86 patients (male/female: 40/46, mean age: 64±7 years) with severe COPD and bilateral incomplete fissures. A total of 10 coils were unilaterally implanted in a single lobe, and 28 out of 86 patients were treated bilaterally. At 90-, 180-, and 365-day follow-up, changes in pulmonary function test (PFT), 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale, as well as possible complications, were recorded.


          At 90 days, the forced expiratory volume in 1 second did improve ( P<0.001), but the improvement was not sustained at the 180- and 365-day follow-up (baseline: 0.71±0.21 vs 0.77±0.23 vs 0.73±0.22 vs 0.70±0.18 L). Both vital capacity and residual volume improved significantly ( P<0.001) at the 90- and 180-day follow-up, but the improvement was lost after 365 days. Total lung capacity decreased at the 90-day follow-up but returned to baseline values at the 180- and 365-day follow-up. 6MWT ( P=0.01) and mMRC ( P=0.007) also improved at 90 and 180 days (Δ6MWT of 31±54 and 20±60 m, respectively), but the improvement was also lost at the 365-day follow-up. No significant further improvement was evident at any point in the follow-up after the second procedure. A total of 4 out of 86 patients passed away due to complications. Significant complications in the first 3 months and then at 12 months included the following: severe hemoptysis in 4 (3.5%) and 4 (3.5%) patients, pneumonia requiring hospitalization in 32 (28.1%) and 9 (7.9%) patients and pneumothorax in 7 (6.1%) and 2 (1.7%) patients, respectively. Milder adverse events included self-limited hemoptysis, pneumonias, or COPD exacerbations treated orally.


          LVRC improved PFT, 6MWT and mMRC initially, but the improvement was lost after 365 days. Furthermore, we observed 4 deaths and significant severe complications, which need to be further elucidated.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 27

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

          A randomized study of endobronchial valves for advanced emphysema.

          Endobronchial valves that allow air to escape from a pulmonary lobe but not enter it can induce a reduction in lobar volume that may thereby improve lung function and exercise tolerance in patients with pulmonary hyperinflation related to advanced emphysema. We compared the safety and efficacy of endobronchial-valve therapy in patients with heterogeneous emphysema versus standard medical care. Efficacy end points were percent changes in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and the 6-minute walk test on intention-to-treat analysis. We assessed safety on the basis of the rate of a composite of six major complications. Of 321 enrolled patients, 220 were randomly assigned to receive endobronchial valves (EBV group) and 101 to receive standard medical care (control group). At 6 months, there was an increase of 4.3% in the FEV1 in the EBV group (an increase of 1.0 percentage point in the percent of the predicted value), as compared with a decrease of 2.5% in the control group (a decrease of 0.9 percentage point in the percent of the predicted value). Thus, there was a mean between-group difference of 6.8% in the FEV1 (P=0.005). Roughly similar between-group differences were observed for the 6-minute walk test. At 12 months, the rate of the complications composite was 10.3% in the EBV group versus 4.6% in the control group (P=0.17). At 90 days, in the EBV group, as compared with the control group, there were increased rates of exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) requiring hospitalization (7.9% vs. 1.1%, P=0.03) and hemoptysis (6.1% vs. 0%, P=0.01). The rate of pneumonia in the target lobe in the EBV group was 4.2% at 12 months. Greater radiographic evidence of emphysema heterogeneity and fissure completeness was associated with an enhanced response to treatment. Endobronchial-valve treatment for advanced heterogeneous emphysema induced modest improvements in lung function, exercise tolerance, and symptoms at the cost of more frequent exacerbations of COPD, pneumonia, and hemoptysis after implantation. (Funded by Pulmonx; number, NCT00129584.)
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The minimal important difference of exercise tests in severe COPD.

             Milo A. Puhan,  Robert Wise,   (2011)
            Our aim was to determine the minimal important difference (MID) for 6-min walk distance (6MWD) and maximal cycle exercise capacity (MCEC) in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). 1,218 patients enrolled in the National Emphysema Treatment Trial completed exercise tests before and after 4-6 weeks of pre-trial rehabilitation, and 6 months after randomisation to surgery or medical care. The St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (domain and total scores) and University of California San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (total score) served as anchors for anchor-based MID estimates. In order to calculate distribution-based estimates, we used the standard error of measurement, Cohen's effect size and the empirical rule effect size. Anchor-based estimates for the 6MWD were 18.9 m (95% CI 18.1-20.1 m), 24.2 m (95% CI 23.4-25.4 m), 24.6 m (95% CI 23.4-25.7 m) and 26.4 m (95% CI 25.4-27.4 m), which were similar to distribution-based MID estimates of 25.7, 26.8 and 30.6 m. For MCEC, anchor-based estimates for the MID were 2.2 W (95% CI 2.0-2.4 W), 3.2 W (95% CI 3.0-3.4 W), 3.2 W (95% CI 3.0-3.4 W) and 3.3 W (95% CI 3.0-3.5 W), while distribution-based estimates were 5.3 and 5.5 W. We suggest a MID of 26 ± 2 m for 6MWD and 4 ± 1 W for MCEC for patients with severe COPD.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Minimal clinically important differences in COPD lung function.

               James Donohue (2005)
              The FEV1 is widely used by physicians in the diagnosis, staging, treatment, monitoring, and establishing prognosis for patients with COPD. The MCID is the smallest difference which patients perceive as beneficial and which would mandate a change in patient management. A precise MCID for FEV1 has not been established. In attempt to establish a MCID for predose or trough FEV1, several limitations need to be addressed. There are issues such as reproducibility, repeatability, acceptability, variability, placebo effect, and equipment effects. Patient factors, such as baseline level of FEV1, albuterol reversibility, diurnal variation, influence the results. Nonetheless, using anchoring techniques, a change in pre dose FEV1 of about 100 mL can be perceived by patients, correlates with fewer relapses following exacerbations and is in the range usually achieved with bronchodilators approved for COPD. In the future, consistent reporting of spirometric variables, such as a predose FEV1 and other outcomes, can be incorporated into a more quantitative effort to establish the MCID. Also distributional/statistical methods may be useful in determining the MCID FEV1.

                Author and article information

                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
                23 January 2017
                : 12
                : 383-394
                [1 ]Department of Pulmonology and Respiratory Care Medicine, Thoraxklinik at the University of Heidelberg
                [2 ]Translational Lung Research Center Heidelberg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research DZL, Heidelberg, Germany
                [3 ]Department of Respiratory Medicine, Harefield Hospital, Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [4 ]Department of Thoracic Surgery, Thoraxklinik at the University of Heidelberg
                [5 ]Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology with Nuclear Medicine, Thoraxklinik at the University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Konstantina Kontogianni, Department of Pulmonology and Respiratory Care Medicine, Thoraxklinik at the University of Heidelberg, Roentgenstrasse 1, 69126 Heidelberg, Germany, Tel +49 6221 396 8097, Email kkontogianni@
                © 2017 Kontogianni et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Original Research

                Respiratory medicine

                copd, emphysema, bronchoscopy, coils, effectiveness, complications


                Comment on this article