Abstract
Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has been proposed for patients with severe emphysema to improve dyspnoea and pulmonary function. It is unknown, however, whether prognosis and pulmonary function in these patients can be improved compared to conservative treatment. The effect of LVRS and conservative therapy were compared prospectively in 57 patients with emphysema, who fulfilled the standard criteria for LVRS. The patients were divided into two groups according to their own decision. Patients in group 1 (n=29, eight females, mean+/-SEM 58.8+/-1.7 yrs, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) 27.6+/-1.3% of the predicted value) underwent LVRS. Patients in group 2 (n=28, five females, 58.5+/-1.8 yrs, FEV1 30.8+/-1.4% pred) preferred to postpone LVRS. There were no significant differences in lung function between the two groups at baseline; however, there was a tendency towards better functional status in the control group. The control group had a better modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) dyspnea score (3.1+/-0.15 versus 3.5+/-0.1, p<0.04). Model-based comparisons were used to estimate the differences between the two groups over 18 months. Significant improvements were observed in the LVRS group compared to the control group in FEV1, total lung capacity (TLC), Residual volume (RV), MMRC dyspnea score and 6-min walking distance on all follow up visits. The estimated difference in FEV1 was 33% (95% confidence interval 13-58%; p>0.0001), in TLC 12.9% (7.9-18.8%; p>0.0001), in RV 60.9% 32.6-89.2%; p>0.0001), in 6-min walking distance 230 m (138-322 m; p<0.002) and in MMRC dyspnoea score 1.17 (0.79-1.55; p<0.0001). In conclusion, lung volume reduction surgery is more effective than conservative treatment for the improvement of dyspnoea, lung function and exercise capacity in selected patients with severe emphysema.
