比较不同类型的单向活瓣在内窥镜下减少重度肺气肿患者肺活量的有效性和安全性。

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Respiration Pub Date : 2024-11-25 DOI:10.1159/000542806
Thomas Sgarbossa, Philipp Borchers, Jacopo Saccomanno, Katharina Ahrens, Hannah Friederike Wüstefeld, Eva Pappe, Uta Wuelfing, Ulrich Klein, Martin Witzenrath, Franz Stanzel, Christian Grah, Ralf-Harto Hübner
{"title":"比较不同类型的单向活瓣在内窥镜下减少重度肺气肿患者肺活量的有效性和安全性。","authors":"Thomas Sgarbossa, Philipp Borchers, Jacopo Saccomanno, Katharina Ahrens, Hannah Friederike Wüstefeld, Eva Pappe, Uta Wuelfing, Ulrich Klein, Martin Witzenrath, Franz Stanzel, Christian Grah, Ralf-Harto Hübner","doi":"10.1159/000542806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":21048,"journal":{"name":"Respiration","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Different Types of One-Way Valves in Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction in Patients with Severe Lung Emphysema.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Sgarbossa, Philipp Borchers, Jacopo Saccomanno, Katharina Ahrens, Hannah Friederike Wüstefeld, Eva Pappe, Uta Wuelfing, Ulrich Klein, Martin Witzenrath, Franz Stanzel, Christian Grah, Ralf-Harto Hübner\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000542806\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Respiration\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Respiration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000542806\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiration","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000542806","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言 内镜下肺活量瓣膜减容术(ELVR)是治疗严重肺气肿患者的有效方法。在临床实践中有两种类型的瓣膜:Zephyr支气管内瓣膜(EBV)和螺旋瓣膜系统(SVS)。我们旨在比较这两种单向瓣膜的疗效和安全性。方法 作为一项前瞻性观察研究的一部分,我们从德国三家肺气肿中心收集了数据,重点关注肺容量的减少。根据瓣膜类型分为两组。两组患者的肺功能(FEV1、RV、DLCO、pCO2)、6 分钟步行距离(6-MWD)、生活质量(SGRQ、mMRC、CAT)和并发症发生率均在基线和三至六个月后的随访中记录。结果 共有54名患者接受了SVS瓣膜治疗,99名患者接受了EBV瓣膜治疗。两组患者在基线时无明显差异。值得注意的是,两种瓣膜都能显著提高肺功能和生活质量。有趣的是,两组患者所有测量参数的平均变化无明显差异,这表明 EBV 和 SVS 的改善效果相当。气胸是两种瓣膜最常见的并发症。两组患者的不良反应发生率无明显差异。结论 我们的研究表明,两种类型的瓣膜在治疗严重肺气肿方面都是安全有效的。我们建议根据个人支气管解剖结构选择瓣膜类型。不过,还需要进一步的随机研究来证实我们的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Different Types of One-Way Valves in Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction in Patients with Severe Lung Emphysema.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Respiration
Respiration 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
5.40%
发文量
82
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Respiration'' brings together the results of both clinical and experimental investigations on all aspects of the respiratory system in health and disease. Clinical improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of chest and lung diseases are covered, as are the latest findings in physiology, biochemistry, pathology, immunology and pharmacology. The journal includes classic features such as editorials that accompany original articles in clinical and basic science research, reviews and letters to the editor. Further sections are: Technical Notes, The Eye Catcher, What’s Your Diagnosis?, The Opinion Corner, New Drugs in Respiratory Medicine, New Insights from Clinical Practice and Guidelines. ''Respiration'' is the official journal of the Swiss Society for Pneumology (SGP) and also home to the European Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology (EABIP), which occupies a dedicated section on Interventional Pulmonology in the journal. This modern mix of different features and a stringent peer-review process by a dedicated editorial board make ''Respiration'' a complete guide to progress in thoracic medicine.
×
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