Smell loss associated with SARS-CoV-2 is not clinically different from other viruses: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the prevalence of cases with olfactory loss, other respiratory viruses can also cause this condition. We aimed to compare the prevalence of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and other respiratory viruses in patients with sudden smell loss, and to assess the impact of SARS-CoV-2 viral load and co-infection on olfactory symptoms. METHODS: Patients with sudden smell loss were recruited in a multicenter prospective cohort study in 15 hospitals in Brazil. Clinical questionnaire, Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) olfactory test and nasopharyngeal swab to perform a PCR-based respiratory viral panel were collected at first visit (day 0) and 30 and 60 days after recruitment. RESULTS: 188 of 213 patients presented positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, among which 65 were co-infected with other respiratory viruses (e.g., rhinovirus, enterovirus, and parainfluenza). 25 had negative test results for SARS-CoV-2. Patients in both SARSCoV-2 and non-SARS-CoV-2 groups had objective anosmia (less than 2 points according to the psychophysical olfactory CCCRC) at day 0, with no significant difference between them. Both groups had significant smell scores improvement after 30 and 60 days, with no difference between them. Co-infection with other respiratory viruses, and SARS-CoV-2 viral load did not impact olfactory scores. CONCLUSION: Patients with sudden smell loss associated with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses had similar presentation, with most participants initiating with anosmia, and total or near total recovery after 60 days. SARS-CoV-2 viral load and co-infections with other respiratory viruses were not associated with poorer olfactory outcomes.

Systematic endoscopic assessment of bleeding sites in severe epistaxis: the role of the S-point and the superior epistaxis.

BACKGROUND: Systematic endoscopic assessment (SEA) of bleeding sites is critical for topodiagnosis and treatment of severe epistaxis, which is not limited to the posterior region. A bleeding site originating from the ethmoidal vasculature, the S-point, has recently been described. The aim of this study is to ascertain the prevalence of each bleeding site in severe epistaxis using a SEA protocol that includes the S-point. METHODOLOGY: Prospective longitudinal study of 51 severe epistaxis patients who underwent 53 SEA under general anesthesia from April 2018 through March 2019. SEA consisted of use of a rigid nasal endoscope; no reduction in blood pressure; no use of topical vasoconstrictor; systematic search of all regions of the nose. Bleeding sites were assigned to either superior or posterior epistaxis. RESULTS: At least one bleeding site was identified in 37 evaluations (69.8%). The S-point was the most common bleeding site (28.3%), followed by the lateral middle turbinate (9.4%), non-S-point upper septum (7.5%), nasal roof (7.5%), and upper lateral wall (7.5%). Superior epistaxis was identified in the most of cases (27 SEA, 50.9%), whereas only 14 SEA (26.4%) identified posterior epistaxis â€" fewer than the 16 SEA that did not identify any bleeding sites (30.2%). There were two recurrences (3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic endoscopic assessment effectively identified bleeding sites in 69.8% of severe epistaxis. The S-point was the most common bleeding site identified (28.3%). Finally, superior epistaxis corresponded to more than half of the identified bleeding sites, demonstrating the importance of examining this region judiciously in patients with severe epistaxis.