The Impact of a Newly Established Multidisciplinary Team on the Interventional Treatment of Patients With Emphysema.

IF 1 Q4 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Vasileios Kouritas, Richard Milton, Emmanouel Kefaloyannis, Kostas Papagiannopoulos, Allesandro Brunelli, Doytchin Dimov, Sishik Karthik, Andrew Hardy, Peter Tcherveniakov, Nilanjan Chaudhuri
{"title":"The Impact of a Newly Established Multidisciplinary Team on the Interventional Treatment of Patients With Emphysema.","authors":"Vasileios Kouritas,&nbsp;Richard Milton,&nbsp;Emmanouel Kefaloyannis,&nbsp;Kostas Papagiannopoulos,&nbsp;Allesandro Brunelli,&nbsp;Doytchin Dimov,&nbsp;Sishik Karthik,&nbsp;Andrew Hardy,&nbsp;Peter Tcherveniakov,&nbsp;Nilanjan Chaudhuri","doi":"10.1177/1179548419852063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The emphysema interventional treatment involves mainly lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) and endobronchial valve (EBV) implantation. Few institutes discuss these cases at a dedicated emphysema multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the impact of a newly established dedicated emphysema MDT meeting on the interventional treatment of such patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>During a study period of 4 years, the outcome of 44 patients who underwent intervention according to the proposal of the emphysema MDT (group A) was compared with the outcome of 44 propensity score matched patients (group B) treated without the emphysema MDT proposal.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>More LVRS and less EBV insertions were performed in group A (<i>P </i>=<i> </i>.009). In group B, the interventions were performed sooner than in group A (<i>P </i>=<i> </i>.003). Postoperative overall morbidity and length of in-hospital stay were similar in the 2 groups (<i>P </i>=<i> </i>.918 and .758, respectively). Improvement of breathing ability was reported in more patients from group A (<i>P </i>=<i> </i>.012). In group B, the total number of re-interventions was higher (<i>P </i>=<i> </i>.001) and the time to re-intervention had the tendency to be less (<i>P </i>=<i> </i>.069). Survival was similar between the 2 groups (<i>P </i>=<i> </i>.884). Intervention without discussion at the MDT and EBV as initial intervention was an independent predictor of re-intervention.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Interventional treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) after discussion at a dedicated MDT involved more LVRS performed, required fewer interventions for their disease, and had longer re-intervention-free intervals and better breathing improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":44269,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine Insights-Circulatory Respiratory and Pulmonary Medicine","volume":"13 ","pages":"1179548419852063"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1179548419852063","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine Insights-Circulatory Respiratory and Pulmonary Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1179548419852063","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: The emphysema interventional treatment involves mainly lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) and endobronchial valve (EBV) implantation. Few institutes discuss these cases at a dedicated emphysema multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting.

Objectives: To investigate the impact of a newly established dedicated emphysema MDT meeting on the interventional treatment of such patients.

Methods: During a study period of 4 years, the outcome of 44 patients who underwent intervention according to the proposal of the emphysema MDT (group A) was compared with the outcome of 44 propensity score matched patients (group B) treated without the emphysema MDT proposal.

Results: More LVRS and less EBV insertions were performed in group A (P =.009). In group B, the interventions were performed sooner than in group A (P =.003). Postoperative overall morbidity and length of in-hospital stay were similar in the 2 groups (P =.918 and .758, respectively). Improvement of breathing ability was reported in more patients from group A (P =.012). In group B, the total number of re-interventions was higher (P =.001) and the time to re-intervention had the tendency to be less (P =.069). Survival was similar between the 2 groups (P =.884). Intervention without discussion at the MDT and EBV as initial intervention was an independent predictor of re-intervention.

Conclusions: Interventional treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) after discussion at a dedicated MDT involved more LVRS performed, required fewer interventions for their disease, and had longer re-intervention-free intervals and better breathing improvement.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

新成立的多学科团队对肺气肿患者介入治疗的影响。
背景:肺气肿的介入治疗主要包括肺减容手术(LVRS)和支气管内瓣膜(EBV)植入术。很少有机构在专门的肺气肿多学科小组(MDT)会议上讨论这些病例。目的:探讨新成立的肺气肿MDT专题会议对此类患者介入治疗的影响。方法:在为期4年的研究期间,将44例根据肺气肿MDT建议进行干预的患者(a组)与44例倾向评分匹配的未接受肺气肿MDT建议的患者(B组)的结果进行比较。结果:A组LVRS较多,EBV插入较少(P = 0.009)。B组干预时间早于A组(P = 0.003)。两组患者术后总发病率和住院时间相似(P =。分别为918和0.758)。A组患者呼吸能力改善较多(P = 0.012)。B组患者再干预总次数较高(P = .001),再干预时间有减少趋势(P = .069)。两组患者生存率相近(P = .884)。在MDT和EBV中不进行讨论的干预作为初始干预是再次干预的独立预测因子。结论:在专门的MDT讨论后,慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的介入治疗涉及更多的LVRS,对其疾病需要更少的干预,并且有更长的再干预间隔和更好的呼吸改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信