Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction Results in Improvement of Diaphragm Mobility as Measured by Sonography

Figures & data

Table 1 Patients Who Developed an Atelectasis Achieved a Higher Increase in Diaphragm Mobility Than Those Who Did Not

	Total No. of Patients	Diaphragm Mobility and Standard Deviation (mm)
Atelectasis ≥ 50%	30	28.97 +/− 15.928
No atelectasis	14	16.07 +/− 21.171

Table 2 All 30 Patients Who Had Developed an Atelectasis Perceived a Positive Outcome After ELVR. Of the 14 Patients Who Had Not Developed an Atelectasis, 6 Patients Perceived a Positive Outcome After ELVR, Too

	Total No. of Patients	No. of Patients Who Perceived a Positive Outcome
Atelectasis ≥ 50%	30	30 (100%)
No atelectasis	14	6 (43%)

Abbreviation: ELVR, endoscopic lung volume reduction.

Figure 1 Patients who perceived a positive outcome after ELVR had a higher increase in diaphragm mobility than those with no perceived improvement in treatment outcome. The 36 patients who perceived a positive outcome after ELVR had a mean increase in diaphragm mobility of 28.89 ± 17.25 mm. The patients with no perceived improvement in treatment outcome after ELVR also had an increase in diaphragm mobility but only of 6.75 ± 12.76 mm.

Abbreviation: ELVR, endoscopic lung volume reduction.

Figure 2 Patients who perceived a positive outcome after ELVR had a higher increase in FEV₁ than those with no perceived improvement in treatment outcome. The patients who perceived a positive outcome after ELVR had an increase in FEV₁ of 18.5%, whereas the patients with no perceived improvement after ELVR had a decrease in FEV₁ of 11.1%.

Abbreviations: ELVR, endoscopic lung volume reduction; FEV₁, forced expiratory volume in 1 s.