Lung cancer is the primary cause of cancer-related death in the United States and many other countries, with 5-year survival rates of approximately 15%.1 Despite the grim overall prognosis, there are better outcomes among patients with stage I or II non–small cell lung cancer who undergo a complete anatomic resection.2 Unfortunately, approximately 90% of patients with lung cancer are smokers, and a substantial percentage will have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.1,3 Moreover, many of these patients will also have significant cardiovascular disease and other medical conditions that increase overall perioperative risk. Despite improvements in pre-, intra-, and postoperative care, the mortality and morbidity associated with pulmonary resection remain high. The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines recommend surgical mortality risk to be <4% for lobectomy and <9% for a pneumonectomy4; the British Thoracic Society guidelines offer similar expectations.5 A review of a large European lung cancer registry revealed 30-day postoperative mortality to be 3.1% after lung resection.6 Among the elderly (age >70 years), mortality rates are reported to be even higher: 14% for pneumonectomy and 4% to 7% for lobectomy.5 These rates, however, seem to have more to do with comorbid conditions than age alone as a risk factor. The risk of pulmonary complications, including pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, prolonged ventilator support, atelectasis requiring bronchoscopy, and reintubation, is also a serious concern. A recent review of almost 7900 patients in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons' General Thoracic Surgery Database revealed an overall pulmonary complication rate of 13%.7 The challenge confronting the multidisciplinary teams of pulmonologists, oncologists, thoracic surgeons, anesthesiologists, and critical care intensivists caring for these patients is to identify those patients at greatest risk for perioperative cardiopulmonary complications. Fortunately, there are several guidelines for preoperative evaluation, each with a helpful algorithm describing a step-wise investigation of a patient's suitability for lung resection.4,5,8,9 The algorithms usually begin with a thorough cardiac assessment, followed by basic spirometry. Depending on these initial results, the guidelines make a variety of recommendations with regard to additional testing of the diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) and different methods of cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Yet, despite the presence of these guidelines, questions remain about the strength of the evidence backing them.3,10 Without question, there is still controversy regarding the specific steps in the proposed algorithms. What matters most in predicting bad outcomes: spirometry or DLCO, or a combination of the two? Should patients be stratified according to spirometric results reported as absolute volumes or percent predicted? What is the best method of determining predicted postoperative lung function: perfusion or anatomic methods? Do the guidelines place too little emphasis on exercise testing? Should we encourage more use of cardiopulmonary exercise testing, as some authors have suggested?11–13 A recent review expressed concern that there was not better “harmonization” among the guidelines.3 Perhaps we can attribute the lack of consensus as an indication that we need further examination of the specific tests and their ability to predict postoperative complications. To that end, in this issue of Anesthesia & Analgesia, Amar et al.14 investigated whether predicted postoperative DLCO (DLCOppo) or forced expired volume in 1 second (FEV1) is better able to predict pulmonary complications after thoracic surgery. Their study was a retrospective review of 956 patients from a prospective database undergoing resection for primary lung cancer between 1992 and 2003 at a single institution. Approximately 20% underwent preoperative chemotherapy. Pulmonary complications, defined as respiratory failure requiring intensive care unit admission or intubation, pneumonia, atelectasis requiring bronchoscopy, pulmonary embolism, and need for supplemental oxygen at hospital discharge, occurred in approximately 13% of patients. The authors found significant univariate associations between pulmonary complications and preoperative serum albumin, preoperative chemotherapy, and both DLCO and DLCOppo. Only DLCOppo and preoperative chemotherapy were independent risk factors for pulmonary complications. Interestingly, FEV1, a major part of the ACCP, British Thoracic Society, and European Respiratory Society/European Society of Thoracic Surgeons guidelines, was not a predictor of postoperative pulmonary complications. In addition, the study found that patients developing pulmonary complications had a longer length of hospital stay and higher 30-day mortality. The authors also developed a simple scoring system to predict postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings, although important, are not without precedent in the literature. The potential for increased risk for pulmonary complications after induction chemotherapy has been reported previously, largely as a result of its negative effect on diffusing capacity.15 The ACCP guidelines also discuss data that suggest that preinduction chemotherapy may increase the risk of pulmonary complications.4 The usefulness of DLCO/DLCOppo versus FEV1 in preoperative evaluation deserves further discussion. Despite the prominence of FEV1 and predicted postoperative FEV1 in the above-mentioned algorithms, the guidelines caution against an overreliance on these values alone. A recent meta-analysis also raised doubts about the value of FEV1 as an independent predictor of postoperative pulmonary complications.13 The role of DLCO as a predictor of postoperative complications has been studied since the 1980s, when Ferguson et al.16 reported it to be a strong independent predictor of postoperative mortality and pulmonary complications. Since that time, several additional investigations7,17–21 have demonstrated the utility of DLCO and/or DLCOppo in predicting adverse outcomes in patients undergoing lung resection. It is especially notable that several of these studies demonstrated the importance of DLCO for risk stratification regardless of spirometric findings. How should the anesthesiologist view this study in the context of the current major guidelines and literature? First, it seems increasingly clear that DLCO measurements and calculation of DLCOppo should be included with spirometry as the initial tests for patients before lung resection. Interestingly, a 2009 survey of members of the European Respiratory Society and European Society of Thoracic Surgeons revealed that only one-third obtained DLCO testing in all patients before lung resection.22 Is this due to a lack of appreciation of its utility, or is it a result of limited access to pulmonary function laboratories capable of performing the test? Second, we applaud the authors' efforts to develop a practical scoring system to predict pulmonary complications. Because many patients undergoing lung resection have FEV1 and DLCO values <80% predicted, it is helpful to have a simple scoring system to categorize patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups. There are other scoring systems or prognostic models but they may not be practical enough to be of use to the busy clinician.22,23 Furthermore, these scoring systems for risk need validation in prospective studies. Third, some type of cardiopulmonary testing needs further consideration as part of the baseline evaluation of all lung resection candidates. Amar et al. did not consider exercise testing in their study, and this is a limitation given its important role in the determination of suitability for an operation. We are interested in recent investigations that demonstrate improved risk stratification using both formal cardiopulmonary exercise testing12 and a less expensive, more readily available stair-climbing test.11 This is an important contribution to a growing body of research. As anesthesiologists and critical care physicians involved in the care of complicated patients undergoing lung resection, we need evidence-based algorithms and scoring systems to guide our evaluation.
Read more