Cover Image

The minimal important difference for target lobe volume reduction after endoscopic valve therapy

Objective: Endoscopic valve therapy aims at target lobe volume reduction (TLVR) that is associated with improved lung function, exercise tolerance and quality of life in emphysema patients. So far, a TLVR of >350 mL was considered to be indicative of a positive response to treatment. However, it...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Gompelmann, Daniela (Author) , Kontogianni, Konstantina (Author) , Schuhmann, Maren (Author) , Eberhardt, Ralf (Author) , Heußel, Claus Peter (Author) , Herth, Felix (Author)
Format: Article (Journal)
Language:English
Published: 2018
In: The International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Year: 2018, Volume: 13, Pages: 465-472
ISSN:1178-2005
DOI:10.2147/COPD.S152029
Online Access:Verlag, kostenfrei registrierungspflichtig, Volltext: https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S152029
Get full text
Author Notes:D. Gompelmann, K. Kontogianni, M. Schuhmann, R. Eberhardt, C.P. Heussel, F.J. Herth
Description
Summary:Objective: Endoscopic valve therapy aims at target lobe volume reduction (TLVR) that is associated with improved lung function, exercise tolerance and quality of life in emphysema patients. So far, a TLVR of >350 mL was considered to be indicative of a positive response to treatment. However, it is not really known what amount of TLVR is crucial following valve implantation. Patients and methods: TLVR, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), residual volume (RV) and 6-minute walk distance (6-MWD) were assessed before and 3 months after valve implantation in 119 patients. TLVR was calculated based on computed tomography (CT) scan analysis using imaging software (Apollo; VIDA Diagnostics). Minimal important difference estimates were calculated by anchor-based and distribution-based methods.Results: Patients treated with valves experienced a mean change of 0.11 L in FEV1, -0.51 L in RV, 44 m in 6-MWD and a TLVR of 945 mL. Using a linear regression and receiver operating characteristic analysis based on two of three anchors (ΔFEV1, ΔRV), the estimated minimal impor­tant difference for TLVR was between 890 and 1,070 mL (ie, 49%–54% of the baseline TLV). Conclusion: In future, a TLVR between 49% and 54% of the baseline TLV, should be used when interpreting the clinical relevance.
Item Description:Gesehen am 13.05.2019
Physical Description:Online Resource
ISSN:1178-2005
DOI:10.2147/COPD.S152029

Similar Items