Study: Lung surgery may help some emphysema
patients
Tuesday, May 20, 2003 Posted: 12:04 PM EDT (1604 GMT)
SEATTLE, Washington (AP) --Cutting out the diseased parts of the lungs in
patients with severe emphysema can modestly improve their capacity to exercise
and their overall quality of life, a landmark study shows.
The surgery was first done in the 1950s and became popular in the 1990s as a
way of restoring breathing power to victims of emphysema, which is otherwise
irreversible and contributes to 100,000 deaths annually in the United States.
However, without a carefully controlled study, there was little clear proof
that the operation actually improves people's lives. As a result, Medicare
imposed a moratorium on paying for the surgery in the mid-1990s and sponsored a
large study to examine its benefits.
The results, released Tuesday, show that fewer than one in five have
meaningful improvement in their symptoms, and the operation has no effect on
long-term survival. Nevertheless, the approach does help some patients,
especially those whose exercise capacity is the worst.
The operation involves cutting away diseased portions of the lungs. Typically
doctors take out about one-quarter to one-third of their total lung tissue,
hoping to help the good parts of the lung work more freely and efficiently by
removing the damaged bulk around them.
Lung reduction surgery "will likely be remade in the context of this trial
and come back stronger than ever," said Dr. Keith Naunheim, chief of thoracic
surgery at St. Louis University and a principal investigator of the National
Emphysema Treatment Trial.
"The conclusions are rock solid. This is a very well-done trial," said Dr.
Robert Cerfolio, chief of thoracic surgery at University of Alabama at
Birmingham and one of the reviewers of the study.
However, he estimated that only about 10 percent of those with emphysema are
suitable for the operation.
The study results were released at a meeting in Seattle of the American
Thoracic Society and also will be published in Thursday's issue of the New
England Journal of Medicine.
Expensive relief, but no cure
The study, begun in 1996, was conducted on 1,218 men and women at 17
hospitals around the country. They were randomly assigned either to get the
operation or standard medical therapy.
After one year, 16 percent of the patients getting the surgery had
significantly increased their exercise capacity as measured on an exercise bike,
compared with 3 percent on medical treatment. On questionnaires, they also rated
their quality of life as better. However, after two years, their conditions had
returned to about the same levels as before the procedure.
The procedure was pioneered decades ago by Dr. Otto Brantigan, a Baltimore
surgeon, but it quickly fell out of favor because of the high mortality rate --
about one in five. In the early 1990s, Dr. Joel Cooper, a St. Louis surgeon,
began doing the operation on emphysema sufferers too sick or old for lung
transplants. Changes in surgical techniques had improved survival rates, and
other doctors quickly began doing lung-volume reduction surgery.
"It spread across the country to other medical centers like wildfire," said
Dr. Joshua Benditt, director of respiratory care services at the University of
Washington Medical Center, who also was involved in the study.
Anecdotal evidence suggested the surgery was effective, but there were no
studies of its worthiness. There also was the question of cost for the
operation, which averages $30,000 to $35,000 and offers no cure, just relief for
some patients.
"We know it's expensive and have to be careful about who gets the procedure,"
said Dr. Scott Ramsey of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, who directed an
analysis of the operation's cost effectiveness.
Dr. Sean Tunin, a Medicare official, said the agency will reassess coverage
for the operation and make new recommendations based largely on the latest
study.
The study found that the surgery was most likely to help people whose
emphysema was mostly in the upper lobes of their lungs and whose exercise
capacity was low. Researchers said one contribution of the study is identifying
those for whom the operation is especially risky.
DISCLAIMER: All
information, data, and material contained, presented, or provided here is for
general information purposes only and is not to be construed as reflecting the
knowledge or opinions of the publisher, and is not to be construed or intended
as providing medical or legal advice. The decision whether or not to vaccinate
is an important and complex issue and should be made by you, and you alone, in
consultation with your health care provider.
"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820
"What's the point of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from the unvaccinated?"
-- Sandy Gottstein
"Who gets to decide what the greater good is and how many will be sacrificed to it?"