Lung Lavage

Hulkster · Dec 30, 2009

I've always been thinking to myself "if there was only a way to clear our the lungs most my CF issues would be reasonable". A few years ago I saw the movie "The Abyss" and there was a scene where these underwater divers basically filled their lungs with liquid oxygen so they could dive deep in the ocean. This struck me as a potential interesting treatment for cystic fibrosis because:

1. Mucous floats in water
2. Mucous is somewhat soluble in water and tends to lose a lot of its stickiness

After some research I found some information on "Liquid Breathing", and it appears to have some useful medical applications:

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing</a>

I also found some articles of studies done where people were getting lung lavages:

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/68/3/382.full.pdf?ck=nck">Article 1</a>

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/68/3/382.full.pdf?ck=nck">Article 2</a>

This is actually the very first time I've ever heard of this procedure. Has anyone ever done this? Does anyone do this on a regular basis?

I can understand that this may be a bit invasive but is there anything more invasive then have your lungs blocked with mucous and not being able to breath?

I wanted to mention this to my doctor but thought this forum would be a better starting point.

Thanks for your insight

Hulkster · Dec 30, 2009

I've always been thinking to myself "if there was only a way to clear our the lungs most my CF issues would be reasonable". A few years ago I saw the movie "The Abyss" and there was a scene where these underwater divers basically filled their lungs with liquid oxygen so they could dive deep in the ocean. This struck me as a potential interesting treatment for cystic fibrosis because:

1. Mucous floats in water
2. Mucous is somewhat soluble in water and tends to lose a lot of its stickiness

After some research I found some information on "Liquid Breathing", and it appears to have some useful medical applications:

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing</a>

I also found some articles of studies done where people were getting lung lavages:

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/68/3/382.full.pdf?ck=nck">Article 1</a>

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/68/3/382.full.pdf?ck=nck">Article 2</a>

This is actually the very first time I've ever heard of this procedure. Has anyone ever done this? Does anyone do this on a regular basis?

I can understand that this may be a bit invasive but is there anything more invasive then have your lungs blocked with mucous and not being able to breath?

I wanted to mention this to my doctor but thought this forum would be a better starting point.

Thanks for your insight

Hulkster · Dec 30, 2009

I've always been thinking to myself "if there was only a way to clear our the lungs most my CF issues would be reasonable". A few years ago I saw the movie "The Abyss" and there was a scene where these underwater divers basically filled their lungs with liquid oxygen so they could dive deep in the ocean. This struck me as a potential interesting treatment for cystic fibrosis because:

1. Mucous floats in water
2. Mucous is somewhat soluble in water and tends to lose a lot of its stickiness

After some research I found some information on "Liquid Breathing", and it appears to have some useful medical applications:

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing</a>

I also found some articles of studies done where people were getting lung lavages:

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/68/3/382.full.pdf?ck=nck">Article 1</a>

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/68/3/382.full.pdf?ck=nck">Article 2</a>

This is actually the very first time I've ever heard of this procedure. Has anyone ever done this? Does anyone do this on a regular basis?

I can understand that this may be a bit invasive but is there anything more invasive then have your lungs blocked with mucous and not being able to breath?

I wanted to mention this to my doctor but thought this forum would be a better starting point.

Thanks for your insight

Hulkster · Dec 30, 2009

I've always been thinking to myself "if there was only a way to clear our the lungs most my CF issues would be reasonable". A few years ago I saw the movie "The Abyss" and there was a scene where these underwater divers basically filled their lungs with liquid oxygen so they could dive deep in the ocean. This struck me as a potential interesting treatment for cystic fibrosis because:

1. Mucous floats in water
2. Mucous is somewhat soluble in water and tends to lose a lot of its stickiness

After some research I found some information on "Liquid Breathing", and it appears to have some useful medical applications:

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing</a>

I also found some articles of studies done where people were getting lung lavages:

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/68/3/382.full.pdf?ck=nck">Article 1</a>

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/68/3/382.full.pdf?ck=nck">Article 2</a>

This is actually the very first time I've ever heard of this procedure. Has anyone ever done this? Does anyone do this on a regular basis?

I can understand that this may be a bit invasive but is there anything more invasive then have your lungs blocked with mucous and not being able to breath?

I wanted to mention this to my doctor but thought this forum would be a better starting point.

Thanks for your insight

Hulkster · Dec 30, 2009

I've always been thinking to myself "if there was only a way to clear our the lungs most my CF issues would be reasonable". A few years ago I saw the movie "The Abyss" and there was a scene where these underwater divers basically filled their lungs with liquid oxygen so they could dive deep in the ocean. This struck me as a potential interesting treatment for cystic fibrosis because:
 
 1. Mucous floats in water
 2. Mucous is somewhat soluble in water and tends to lose a lot of its stickiness
 
 After some research I found some information on "Liquid Breathing", and it appears to have some useful medical applications:
 
 <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing</a>
 
 I also found some articles of studies done where people were getting lung lavages:
 
 <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/68/3/382.full.pdf?ck=nck">Article 1</a>
 
 <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/68/3/382.full.pdf?ck=nck">Article 2</a>
 
 
 This is actually the very first time I've ever heard of this procedure. Has anyone ever done this? Does anyone do this on a regular basis?
 
 I can understand that this may be a bit invasive but is there anything more invasive then have your lungs blocked with mucous and not being able to breath?
 
 I wanted to mention this to my doctor but thought this forum would be a better starting point.
 
 Thanks for your insight

ladybug · Dec 30, 2009

Hello, Hulkster (love the name btw!)

I admit, I didn't have a chance to read your links (I am suffering an awful headcold and my sinuses and eyes are killing me), so I apologize if this isn't what you're looking for.

I have had a "bronchoscopy with lavage" a couple months ago. I had a "mass" show up on a CT scan and they didn't know if it was mucus or MAC or what, so they wanted to do a bronch to get a better sample of it. During this, they also wanted to hit it with a couple syringes full of saline rinse to hopefully rinse it away.

My doc was very frank and said this lavage would not be a cure. I may feel better for a couple weeks, but inevitably the mucus (as mucus does with us cystics) would grow back. It would likely even infiltrate that same spot or "crevice" in my lungs, since once its gone it will signal to the rest of the bacteria that there is a stellar breeding ground untouched by other bacteria.

Anyway, long story short, they did the lavage and I have to admit I didn't feel better at all. In fact, I felt worse. I coughed up blood for a few days and felt extremely sob and tight in my chest. These are all possible "normal" reactions to a bronch with or without lavage. Anyway, I started feeling a bit more "usual" within a couple weeks at which time we did another CT scan. It showed absolutely no difference. The mass was even still there!

So, unless, while I was under, they went out for cocktails and left me sleeping on the table, I'm pretty sure the lavage did nothing for me. They did say they got some great samples though, so I guess that is good. It didn't really change my treatment outcome though.

All in all, I think the lavage is maybe a good thing under certain circumstances (like if they're going to do a bronch anyway), but I'm not so sure it is worth the risk to someone with more extensive lung damage and/or hemoptysis (like I have). I don't know if I'd do it again just as a diagnostic tool (but I guess this is probably mostly the bronch and not the lavage).

Anyway, not sure that's what you were looking for, but wanted to give my experience.

<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

ladybug · Dec 30, 2009

Hello, Hulkster (love the name btw!)

I admit, I didn't have a chance to read your links (I am suffering an awful headcold and my sinuses and eyes are killing me), so I apologize if this isn't what you're looking for.

I have had a "bronchoscopy with lavage" a couple months ago. I had a "mass" show up on a CT scan and they didn't know if it was mucus or MAC or what, so they wanted to do a bronch to get a better sample of it. During this, they also wanted to hit it with a couple syringes full of saline rinse to hopefully rinse it away.

My doc was very frank and said this lavage would not be a cure. I may feel better for a couple weeks, but inevitably the mucus (as mucus does with us cystics) would grow back. It would likely even infiltrate that same spot or "crevice" in my lungs, since once its gone it will signal to the rest of the bacteria that there is a stellar breeding ground untouched by other bacteria.

Anyway, long story short, they did the lavage and I have to admit I didn't feel better at all. In fact, I felt worse. I coughed up blood for a few days and felt extremely sob and tight in my chest. These are all possible "normal" reactions to a bronch with or without lavage. Anyway, I started feeling a bit more "usual" within a couple weeks at which time we did another CT scan. It showed absolutely no difference. The mass was even still there!

So, unless, while I was under, they went out for cocktails and left me sleeping on the table, I'm pretty sure the lavage did nothing for me. They did say they got some great samples though, so I guess that is good. It didn't really change my treatment outcome though.

All in all, I think the lavage is maybe a good thing under certain circumstances (like if they're going to do a bronch anyway), but I'm not so sure it is worth the risk to someone with more extensive lung damage and/or hemoptysis (like I have). I don't know if I'd do it again just as a diagnostic tool (but I guess this is probably mostly the bronch and not the lavage).

Anyway, not sure that's what you were looking for, but wanted to give my experience.

<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

ladybug · Dec 30, 2009

Hello, Hulkster (love the name btw!)

I admit, I didn't have a chance to read your links (I am suffering an awful headcold and my sinuses and eyes are killing me), so I apologize if this isn't what you're looking for.

I have had a "bronchoscopy with lavage" a couple months ago. I had a "mass" show up on a CT scan and they didn't know if it was mucus or MAC or what, so they wanted to do a bronch to get a better sample of it. During this, they also wanted to hit it with a couple syringes full of saline rinse to hopefully rinse it away.

My doc was very frank and said this lavage would not be a cure. I may feel better for a couple weeks, but inevitably the mucus (as mucus does with us cystics) would grow back. It would likely even infiltrate that same spot or "crevice" in my lungs, since once its gone it will signal to the rest of the bacteria that there is a stellar breeding ground untouched by other bacteria.

Anyway, long story short, they did the lavage and I have to admit I didn't feel better at all. In fact, I felt worse. I coughed up blood for a few days and felt extremely sob and tight in my chest. These are all possible "normal" reactions to a bronch with or without lavage. Anyway, I started feeling a bit more "usual" within a couple weeks at which time we did another CT scan. It showed absolutely no difference. The mass was even still there!

So, unless, while I was under, they went out for cocktails and left me sleeping on the table, I'm pretty sure the lavage did nothing for me. They did say they got some great samples though, so I guess that is good. It didn't really change my treatment outcome though.

All in all, I think the lavage is maybe a good thing under certain circumstances (like if they're going to do a bronch anyway), but I'm not so sure it is worth the risk to someone with more extensive lung damage and/or hemoptysis (like I have). I don't know if I'd do it again just as a diagnostic tool (but I guess this is probably mostly the bronch and not the lavage).

Anyway, not sure that's what you were looking for, but wanted to give my experience.

<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

ladybug · Dec 30, 2009

Hello, Hulkster (love the name btw!)

I admit, I didn't have a chance to read your links (I am suffering an awful headcold and my sinuses and eyes are killing me), so I apologize if this isn't what you're looking for.

I have had a "bronchoscopy with lavage" a couple months ago. I had a "mass" show up on a CT scan and they didn't know if it was mucus or MAC or what, so they wanted to do a bronch to get a better sample of it. During this, they also wanted to hit it with a couple syringes full of saline rinse to hopefully rinse it away.

My doc was very frank and said this lavage would not be a cure. I may feel better for a couple weeks, but inevitably the mucus (as mucus does with us cystics) would grow back. It would likely even infiltrate that same spot or "crevice" in my lungs, since once its gone it will signal to the rest of the bacteria that there is a stellar breeding ground untouched by other bacteria.

Anyway, long story short, they did the lavage and I have to admit I didn't feel better at all. In fact, I felt worse. I coughed up blood for a few days and felt extremely sob and tight in my chest. These are all possible "normal" reactions to a bronch with or without lavage. Anyway, I started feeling a bit more "usual" within a couple weeks at which time we did another CT scan. It showed absolutely no difference. The mass was even still there!

So, unless, while I was under, they went out for cocktails and left me sleeping on the table, I'm pretty sure the lavage did nothing for me. They did say they got some great samples though, so I guess that is good. It didn't really change my treatment outcome though.

All in all, I think the lavage is maybe a good thing under certain circumstances (like if they're going to do a bronch anyway), but I'm not so sure it is worth the risk to someone with more extensive lung damage and/or hemoptysis (like I have). I don't know if I'd do it again just as a diagnostic tool (but I guess this is probably mostly the bronch and not the lavage).

Anyway, not sure that's what you were looking for, but wanted to give my experience.

<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

ladybug · Dec 30, 2009

Hello, Hulkster (love the name btw!)
 
 I admit, I didn't have a chance to read your links (I am suffering an awful headcold and my sinuses and eyes are killing me), so I apologize if this isn't what you're looking for.
 
 I have had a "bronchoscopy with lavage" a couple months ago. I had a "mass" show up on a CT scan and they didn't know if it was mucus or MAC or what, so they wanted to do a bronch to get a better sample of it. During this, they also wanted to hit it with a couple syringes full of saline rinse to hopefully rinse it away.
 
 My doc was very frank and said this lavage would not be a cure. I may feel better for a couple weeks, but inevitably the mucus (as mucus does with us cystics) would grow back. It would likely even infiltrate that same spot or "crevice" in my lungs, since once its gone it will signal to the rest of the bacteria that there is a stellar breeding ground untouched by other bacteria.
 
 Anyway, long story short, they did the lavage and I have to admit I didn't feel better at all. In fact, I felt worse. I coughed up blood for a few days and felt extremely sob and tight in my chest. These are all possible "normal" reactions to a bronch with or without lavage. Anyway, I started feeling a bit more "usual" within a couple weeks at which time we did another CT scan. It showed absolutely no difference. The mass was even still there!
 
 So, unless, while I was under, they went out for cocktails and left me sleeping on the table, I'm pretty sure the lavage did nothing for me. They did say they got some great samples though, so I guess that is good. It didn't really change my treatment outcome though.
 
 All in all, I think the lavage is maybe a good thing under certain circumstances (like if they're going to do a bronch anyway), but I'm not so sure it is worth the risk to someone with more extensive lung damage and/or hemoptysis (like I have). I don't know if I'd do it again just as a diagnostic tool (but I guess this is probably mostly the bronch and not the lavage).
 
 Anyway, not sure that's what you were looking for, but wanted to give my experience.
 
 <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

crickit715 · Dec 31, 2009