TABLE 4.
EPF group: Lingula LB4/LB5 fissural defects analysis
| Lingula fissural defects (n = 6) | Other LUL segment fissural defects (n = 8) | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Panel 1: Comparison with fissural defects in other LUL segments—% changes post ELVR | |||
| Post‐BD FEV1 (% change) | 22.9 (16.3) | 16.3 (7.8) | < 0.05 |
| Post‐BD FVC (% change) | 15.9 (7.9) | 13.7 (7.3) | NS |
| TLC (% change) | −7.5 (2.1) | ‐ 3.8 (2.1) | NS |
| RV (% change) | −22.1 (7.4) | −9.4 (4.6) | < 0.05 |
| DLCO (% predicted) | 10.3 (4.7) | 2.4 (4.7) | < 0.05 |
| KCO (% change) | 15.5 (6.7) | 4.1 (3.7) | < 0.05 |
| 6MWD (% change) | 23.9 (4.2) | 21.3 (11) a | NS |
| SGRQ (% change) | −34.9 (9.0) | −16.8 (6.7) | < 0.05 |
| LUL volume (% change) | −53.91 (9.9) | −34.5 (9.6) | < 0.05 |
| Lingula fissural defects (n = 6) | EBV‐CTRL group (n = 14) | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Panel 2: Comparison with EBV‐CTRL group—% changes post ELVR | |||
| Post‐BD FEV1 (% change) | 22.9 (16.3) | 27.7 (5.3) | NS |
| Post‐BD FVC (% change) | 15.9 (7.9) | 15.9 (5.6) | NS |
| TLC (% change) | −7.5 (2.1) | −5.8 (1.5) | NS |
| RV (% change) | −22.1 (7.4) | −20.1 (5.6) | NS |
| DLCO (% predicted) | 10.3 (4.7) | 6.5 (5.0) | NS |
| KCO (% change) | 15.5 (6.7) | 9.4 (3.8) | NS |
| 6MWD (% change) | 23.9 (4.2) | 28.4 (11.0) | < 0.05 |
| SGRQ (% change) | −34.9 (9.0) | −28.8 (4.7) | NS |
| LUL volume (% change) | −53.91 (9.9) | −46.1 (6.0) | NS |
Note: Data are presented as n (%) or mean ± SEM, unless otherwise stated.
Abbreviations: BD, bronchodilator; CV, collateral ventilation; DLCO, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide; EBV‐CTRL, endobronchial valve control group; ELVR, endoscopic lung volume reduction; EPF, endobronchial polymer foam; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 s; FVC, forced vital capacity; LUL, left upper lobe; RV, residual volume; TLC, total lung capacity.
a
n = 6—as two subjects from rural areas were unable to travel to have 6MWD performed in an appropriate timeframe.