Lynda Holsworth

Bio: Lynda Holsworth is an academic researcher from Alfred Hospital. The author has contributed to research in topics: Lung & Lung transplantation. The author has an hindex of 7, co-authored 13 publications receiving 582 citations. Previous affiliations of Lynda Holsworth include Monash University.

Relation of interlobar collaterals to radiological heterogeneity in severe emphysema

Abstract: Background: A study was undertaken to assess the prevalence of interlobar collateral ventilation in patients with severe emphysema to identify factors that may help to predict patients with significant collateral ventilation. Methods: Between April 2002 and August 2003, ex vivo assessment of the lungs 17 consecutive patients with smoking related severe emphysema was performed. To assess collateral flow, all lobes of explanted specimens were selectively intubated using a wedged cuffed microlaryngeal intubation tube and then manually ventilated using a bagging circuit. Interlobar collateral ventilation was defined as the ability to easily inflate a non-intubated lobe at physiological pressures. Pre-transplant demographic characteristics, physiological data, radiological results, and explant histology were assessed for retrospective relationships with the degree of interlobar collateral ventilation in the explanted lung. Results: A total of 23 lungs were evaluated, 15 of which (66%) had significant collateral interlobar airflow. There were no significant differences in any demographic, physiological, or pathological variables between patients with collateral ventilation and those with no collateral ventilation. However, there was a significant relationship between the presence of interlobar collateral ventilation and radiological scores (p Conclusions: Interlobar collateral ventilation occurs to a much greater extent in patients with radiologically homogeneous emphysema than in those with heterogeneous emphysema. Heterogeneity of emphysema may predict patients with a significantly reduced risk of interlobar collateral ventilation.

A randomized study of endobronchial valves for advanced emphysema.

Abstract: Methods We compared the safety and efficacy of endobronchial-valve therapy in patients with heterogeneous emphysema versus standard medical care. Efficacy end points were percent changes in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ) and the 6-minute walk test on intention-to-treat analysis. We assessed safety on the basis of the rate of a composite of six major complications. Results Of 321 enrolled patients, 220 were randomly assigned to receive endobronchial valves (EBV group) and 101 to receive standard medical care (control group). At 6 months, there was an increase of 4.3% in the FEV 1 in the EBV group (an increase of 1.0 percentage point in the percent of the predicted value), as compared with a decrease of 2.5% in the control group (a decrease of 0.9 percentage point in the percent of the predicted value). Thus, there was a mean between-group difference of 6.8% in the FEV 1 (P = 0.005). Roughly similar between-group differences were observed for the 6-minute walk test. At 12 months, the rate of the complications composite was 10.3% in the EBV group versus 4.6% in the control group (P = 0.17). At 90 days, in the EBV group, as compared with the control group, there were increased rates of exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) requiring hospitalization (7.9% vs. 1.1%, P = 0.03) and hemoptysis (6.1% vs. 0%, P = 0.01). The rate of pneumonia in the target lobe in the EBV group was 4.2% at 12 months. Greater radiographic evidence of emphysema heterogeneity and fissure completeness was associated with an enhanced response to treatment. Conclusions Endobronchial-valve treatment for advanced heterogeneous emphysema induced modest improvements in lung function, exercise tolerance, and symptoms at the cost of more frequent exacerbations of COPD, pneumonia, and hemoptysis after implantation. (Funded by Pulmonx; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00129584.)

Global Guidelines for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection

Abstract: The World Health Organization (WHO) has released new guidelines [1] for reducing health care associated infections related to surgery. The new guidelines include 29 concrete recommendations distilled by 20 of the world’s leading experts from 26 reviews of the latest evidence. The recommendations are designed to address the increasing burden of health care associated infections on both patients and health care systems globally. The guidelines include 13 recommendations for the period before surgery, and 16 for preventing infections during and after surgery. They range from simple precautions such as ensuring that patients bathe or shower before surgery and the best way for surgical teams to clean their hands, to guidance on when to use antibiotics to prevent infections, what disinfectants to use before incision, and which sutures to use.

New WHO recommendations on intraoperative and postoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective

Abstract: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the most common health-care-associated infections in developing countries, but they also represent a substantial epidemiological burden in high-income countries. The prevention of these infections is complex and requires the integration of a range of preventive measures before, during, and after surgery. No international guidelines are available and inconsistencies in the interpretation of evidence and recommendations in national guidelines have been identified. Considering the prevention of SSIs as a priority for patient safety, WHO has developed evidence-based and expert consensus-based recommendations on the basis of an extensive list of preventive measures. We present in this Review 16 recommendations specific to the intraoperative and postoperative periods. The WHO recommendations were developed with a global perspective and they take into account the balance between benefits and harms, the evidence quality level, cost and resource use implications, and patient values and preferences.

Results of 150 consecutive bilateral lung volume reduction procedures in patients with severe emphysema

Abstract: Between January 1993 and February 1996, we performed 150 bilateral lung volume reduction procedures for patients with severe emphysema. Patients were selected on the basis of severe dyspnea, increased lung capacity, and a pattern of emphysema that included regions of severe destruction, hyperinflation, and poor perfusion. Twenty percent to 30% of the volume of each lung was excised with the use of a linear stapler and bovine pericardial strips attached to buttress the staple line. Patients were between 36 and 77 years old, with an average 1-second forced expiratory volume of 25% of predicted, total lung capacity of 142% of predicted, and residual volume of 283% of predicted. Ninety-three percent of patients required supplemental oxygen, continuously or with exertion. All patients but one were extubated at the end of the procedure. The 90-day mortality was 4%. Hospital stay progressively decreased with experience, and for the last 50 patients the median hospital stay was 7 days. Prolonged air leakage was the major complication. Results at 6 months show a 51% increase in the 1-second forced expiratory volume and a 28% reduction in the residual volume. The Pao2 increased by an average of 8 mm Hg, and 70% of the patients who had previously required continuous supplemental oxygen no longer had this requirement. The improvements in measured pulmonary function were paralleled by a significant reduction in dyspnea and an improvement in the quality of life. Reevaluation at 1 year and 2 years after operation showed the benefit to be well maintained. We conclude that lung volume reduction offers benefits not achievable by any means other than lung transplantation for highly selected patients with severe emphysema.