Rationale: Targeted lung denervation (TLD) is a bronchoscopic radiofrequency ablation therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which durably disrupts parasympathetic pulmonary nerves to decrease airway resistance and mucus hypersecretion.Objectives: To determine the safety and impact of TLD on respiratory adverse events.Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, sham bronchoscopy–controlled, double-blind trial in patients with symptomatic (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score, ≥2; or COPD Assessment Test score, ≥10) COPD (FEV1, 30–60% predicted). The primary endpoint was the rate of respiratory adverse events between 3 and 6.5 months after randomization (defined as COPD exacerbation, tachypnea, wheezing, worsening bronchitis, worsening dyspnea, influenza, pneumonia, other respiratory infections, respiratory failure, or airway effects requiring therapeutic intervention). Blinding was maintained through 12.5 months.Measurements and Main Results: Eighty-two patients (50% female; mean ± SD: age, 63.7 ± 6.8 yr; FEV1, 41.6 ± 7.3% predicted; modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score, 2.2 ± 0.7; COPD Assessment Test score, 18.4 ± 6.1) were randomized 1:1. During the predefined 3- to 6.5-month window, patients in the TLD group experienced significantly fewer respiratory adverse events than those in the sham group (32% vs. 71%, P = 0.008; odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.0750–0.4923, P = 0.0006). Between 0 and 12.5 months, these findings were not different (83% vs. 90%; P = 0.52). The risk of COPD exacerbation requiring hospitalization in the 0- to 12.5-month window was significantly lower in the TLD group than in the sham group (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.13–0.99; P = 0.039). There was no statistical difference in the time to first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, patient-reported symptoms, or other physiologic measures over the 12.5 months of follow-up.Conclusions: Patients with symptomatic COPD treated with TLD combined with optimal pharmacotherapy had fewer study-defined respiratory adverse events, including hospitalizations for COPD exacerbation.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02058459).

; on behalf of the RENEW Study Group * BACKGROUND: The Lung Volume Reduction Coil Treatment in Patients With Emphysema (RENEW) trial reported improvements in quality of life, pulmonary function, and exercise performance following endobronchial coil treatment. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this post hoc analysis was to identify baseline predictors, including quantitative CT measures, that identify patients most likely to significantly benefit from endobronchial coil therapy. METHODS: Quantitative CT analysis by an independent radiology laboratory and a qualitative evaluation by five blinded experts of the baseline thoracic CT imaging were performed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to elucidate characteristics associated with clinical response. RESULTS: In total, 125 patients underwent coil treatment and had evaluable 12-month followup results. Of these, 78 patients received treatment of lobes with the highest emphysematous destruction determined by quantitative CT analysis (quantitative visual match [QVM]þ), and 47 received treatment in at least one lobe that was not the most destroyed (QVM-). From the 78 patients with QVMþ treatment, a subgroup of 50 patients (64%) was identified with baseline residual volume > 200% predicted, emphysema score > 20% low attenuation area, and absence of airway disease. In this subgroup, greater lobar residual volume reduction in the treated lobes was achieved, which was associated with significant mean AE SE improvement in FEV 1 (15.2 AE 3.1%), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (-12 AE 2 points), and residual volume (-0.57 AE 0.13 L). DISCUSSION: This post hoc analysis found that both significant hyperinflation (residual volume $ 200% predicted) and CT analysis are critical for patient selection and treatment planning for endobronchial coil therapy. Quantitative CT analysis is important to identify optimal lobar treatment and to exclude patients with insufficient emphysema (< 20% low attenuation area), whereas visual assessment identifies patients with signs of airway disease associated with worse outcomes.

No abstract

Background Spirometric lung function measurements have been proven to be excellent objective markers of respiratory morbidity. The use of different types of spirometers in epidemiological and clinical studies may present systematically different results affecting interpretation and implication of results. We aimed to explore considerations in the use of different spirometers in epidemiological studies by comparing forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) and forced vital capacity (FVC) measurements between the Masterscreen pneumotachograph and EasyOne spirometers. We also provide a correction equation for correcting systematic differences using regression calibration. Methods Forty-nine volunteers had lung function measured on two different spirometers in random order with at least three attempts on each spirometer. Data were analysed using correlation plots, Bland and Altman plots and formal paired t-tests. We used regression calibration to provide a correction equation. Results The mean (SD) FEV 1 and FVC was 3.78 (0.63) L and 4.78 (0.63) L for the Masterscreen pneumotachograph and 3.54 (0.60) L and 4.41 (0.83) L for the EasyOne spirometer. The mean FEV 1 difference of 0.24 L and mean FVC difference of 0.37 L between the spirometers (corresponding to 6.3 and 8.4% difference, respectively) were statistically significant and consistent between younger (< 30 years) and older volunteers (> 30 years) and between males and females. Regression calibration indicated that an increase of 1 L in the EasyOne measurements corresponded to an average increase of 1.032 L in FEV 1 and 1.005 L in FVC in the Masterscreen measurements. Conclusion Use of different types of spirometers may result in significant systematic differences in lung function values. Epidemiological researchers need to be aware of these potential systematic differences and correct for them in analyses using methods such as regression calibration.