4.6 Article

Long-Term Results After Lung Volume Reduction Surgery: A Single Institution's Experience

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 107, Issue 4, Pages 1068-1073

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.10.014

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) showed a clear survival and quality of life benefit for patients selected for lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS). However, long-term outcomes after LVRS are still lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate overall mortality and functional durability in this single-institution cohort of patients undergoing LVRS. Methods. A single-institution registry identified all patients who had undergone LVRS from January 2006 through August 2017. Records were retrospectively reviewed, and data were collected to include pulmonary functions test values, he University of California, San Diego shortness of breath questionnaire and complication and mortality rate. Results. LVRS was performed in 135 patients with a 2.2% 90-day mortality rate (n = 3). Estimated 1-, 2- and 5-year survival was 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88 to 0.97), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.83 to 0.95), and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.81), respectively. Mean improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second% predicted from preoperative baseline at 1 and 2 years was 5.3 (95% CI, 3.1 to 7.4) and 4.3 (95% CI, 1.9 to 6.6), respectively. There was a mean improvement in maximum workload of 5.2 W (95% CI, 0.9 to 9.4) at 1 year. Also, shortness of breath questionnaire scores had a mean decrease of -17.3 points (95% CI, -21.8 to -13) at 6 months and -13.9 points (95% CI, -18.4 to -9.3) at 1 year. Conclusions. LVRS is an effective operation with overall improvement in functional status and quality of life in appropriately selected patients. (C) 2019 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available