Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) for the treatment of emphysema was originally developed in the early 2000s as a minimally invasive alternative to lung volume reduction surgery. Endobronchial valves for BLVR are an advancing \"guideline treatment\" in the treatment of advanced emphysema. Placement of small, one-way valves into segmental or subsegmental airways can induce lobar atelectasis for portions of diseased lung. This results in the reduction of hyperinflation along with improvements in diaphragmatic curvature and excursion.

UNASSIGNED: One-way endobronchial valve treatment improves lung function, exercise capacity, and quality of live in patients with severe emphysema and hyperinflation. Other areas of therapeutic application include treatment of persistent air leak (PAL), giant emphysematous bullae, native lung hyperinflation, hemoptysis, and tuberculosis.
UNASSIGNED: In this review, we will assess the clinical evidence and safety of the different applications of one-way endobronchial valves (EBV).
UNASSIGNED: There is solid clinical evidence for the use of one-way EBV for lung volume reduction in emphysema. Treatment with one-way EBV can be considered for the treatment of PAL. The application of one-way EBV for giant bullae, post lung transplant native lung hyperinflation, hemoptysis, and tuberculosis is under investigation and more research is required to investigate the efficacy and safety of these applications.

BACKGROUND: Spiration Valve System (SVS) is an alternative for patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema; however, data about efficacy from randomized controlled trials (RCT) are unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To explore both efficacy and safety of SVS in patients with severe emphysema and hyperinflation.
METHODS: We included PubMed, EMBASE, Coch-rane database. All searches were performed until August 2019. Only RCTs were included for analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis evaluated change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), 6-min walking test (6MWT), residual volume, modified medical research council (mMRC) and Saint George respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ), all-cause mortality, risk of pneumothorax, and risk of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Quality of the evidence was rated using GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Four RCTs including 629 subjects were included. SVS showed an overall change of 0.03 L (-0.07 to 0.13, I2 = 90%) in the in FEV1 (L) and a 2.03% (-2.50 to 6.57, I2 = 96%) in the predicted FEV1 (%) compared to baseline; however, studies without collateral ventilation (CV) showed an improvement of 0.12 L (95% CI 0.09-0.015, I2 = 0%), This subgroup also reported better results in SGRQ -12.27 points (95% CI -15.84 to -8.70, I2 = 0%) and mMRC -0.54 (95% CI -0.74 to -0.33, I2 = 0%). We found no benefit in 6MWT mean difference = 4.56 m (95% CI -21.88 to 31.00, I2 = 73%). Relative risk of mortality was 2.54 (95% CI 0.81-7.96, I2 = 0%), for pneumothorax 3.3 (95% CI 0.61-18.12, I2 = 0%) and AECOPD 1.68 (95% CI 1.04-2.70, I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema and hyperinflation without CV, SVS is an alternative that showed an improvement in pulmonary function, quality of life, and dyspnea score with an acceptable risk profile.