Overall survival and prognostic factors in diabetic patients with invasive fungal rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are susceptible to invasive fungal rhinosinusitis (IFRS). The mortality rate of IFRS varies greatly among the patients with DM. OBJECTIVE: To identify the prognostic factors for the overall survival of patients with DM and IFRS. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in four tertiary hospitals in Thailand, Malaysia and Myanmar. Patients diagnosed with IFRS and DM from 2008 to 2019 were identified. The outcome was the overall survival. Variables analyzed for risk factors were age, HbA1C level, ketoacidosis, white blood cell count, hyperglycemia, duration of DM, current use of diabetic medications, serum creatinine level, and the extensions of IFRS to the orbit, the cavernous sinus and intracranial cavity. RESULTS: Sixty-five diabetic patients with IFRS (age 57.9 ± 13.4 years, male 60%) were identified. The mortality rate was 21.5%. The extensions of IFRS to the cavernous sinus (hazard ratio 5.1, 95% CI [1.4-18.2], p = 0.01) and intracranial cavity (hazard ratio 3.4, 95% CI [1.1-11.3, p = 0.05) predicted mortality. Current use of diabetic medications decreased the mortality risk (hazard ratio 0.2, 95% CI [0.1-0.9], p = 0.03). The 6-month overall survival of the patients with and without the cavernous sinus extension were 51.4% and 83.6%, (p = 0.001), with and without intracranial extension 53.3% and 88.9%, (p = 0.001), and with and without current diabetic medications 82.3% and 57.5%, respectively (p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: The extensions of IFRS to the cavernous sinus and intracranial cavity increased the risk of death in patients with DM. Survival was primarily related to current use of diabetic medications.

Phase III study of Phlai capsules in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies demonstrated anti-inflammatory effects of Zingiber montanum (J.König) Link ex Dietr.(Phlai). However, its clinical effect on allergic rhinitis (AR) is not evident. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of Phlai for treating AR. METHODS: A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted. Patients with AR were randomized into three groups and received Phlai 100 mg or Phlai 200 mg or placebo once a day for four weeks. The primary outcome was a change in the reflective total five symptom score (rT5SS). The secondary outcomes were the change in the instantaneous total five symptom score (iT5SS), the reflective individual symptom scores (rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, sneezing, itchy nose, itchy eyes), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life-36 Questionnaire (RCQ-36) score, peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), and adverse events. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-two patients were enrolled. Compared with placebo, Phlai 100 mg improved rT5SS [adjusted mean difference (aMD) -0.62; 95%CI -1.22, -0.03; p = 0.039], rhinorrhea (aMD -0.19; 95%CI -0.37, 0.002; p = 0.048), itchy nose (aMD -0.24; 95%CI -0.43, -0.05; p = 0.011), and itchy eyes (aMD -0.19; 95%CI -0.36, -0.02; p = 0.033) at week 4. Nasal obstruction, sneezing, iT5SS, overall RCQ-36 score, PNIF did not reach statistical significance. Phlai 200 mg did not bring additional benefits compared to 100 mg. Adverse events were similar among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Phlai was safe. At four weeks, there were small improvements in rT5SS, together with the individual symptoms of rhinorrhea, itchy nose, and itchy eyes.

Risk factors of orbital complications in outpatients presenting with severe rhinosinusitis: A case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed associations of potential factors with orbital complications in acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) patients. DESIGN: An unmatched case-control study. SETTING: A tertiary referral hospital in Thailand. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive outpatients of any age with severe ARS (visual analog scale ≥ 7) with and without orbital complications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients were enrolled from January 2013 to December 2018. Forty-three ARS patients (55.8% female, median age 45.6, (range 2.0-93.0) years) were included, with 19 patients in the complicated group and 24 in the uncomplicated group. Patient characteristics (gender, age, diabetes, immune status), symptoms and signs, site of infection and type of pathogenic bacteria were recorded and assessed their associations with orbital complications by univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: The most common orbital complication was subperiosteal abscess (42.1%), followed by orbital cellulitis (15.8%) and cavernous sinus thrombosis (10.5%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated a positive association with orbital complications (pseudo R2 0.4) for ethmoid sinusitis (OR 31.1, 95% CI [2.3-430.6]) and a short duration of symptoms (OR 0.9, 95% CI [0.8-0.9]). CONCLUSIONS: Orbital complications were associated with ethmoid sinusitis with a short duration of ARS symptoms.

Smell and taste dysfunction in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A review of epidemiology, pathogenesis, prognosis, and treatment options.

During the initial pandemic wave of COVID-19, apart from common presenting symptoms (cough, fever, and fatigue), many countries have reported a sudden increase in the number of smell and taste dysfunction patients. Smell dysfunction has been reported in other viral infections (parainfluenza, rhinovirus, SARS, and others), but the incidence is much lower than SARS-CoV-2 infection. The pathophysiology of post-infectious olfactory loss was hypothesized that viruses may produce an inflammatory reaction of the nasal mucosa or damage the olfactory neuroepithelium directly. However, loss of smell could be presented in COVID-19 patients without other rhinologic symptoms or significant nasal inflammation. This review aims to provide a brief overview of recent evidence for epidemiology, pathological mechanisms for the smell, and taste dysfunction in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Furthermore, prognosis and treatments are reviewed with scanty evidence. We also discuss the possibility of using "smell and taste loss" as a screening tool for COVID-19 and treatment options in the post-SARS-CoV-2 infectious olfactory loss.

Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions (OGD) are pathognomonic symptoms in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study reviews the associations of OGD with COVID-19 which will be useful for early diagnosis and self-isolation. Systematic searches of PubMed, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE electronic databases were performed. Studies reporting OGD in COVID-19 patients were included. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. The outcomes were odds ratios (OR) of OGD in COVID-19 patients. Proportions of smell and/or taste dysfunctions in the COVID-19 patients were assessed. Fourteen studies (21,515 participants, age 49.12 years, 26% male) were included. The OR of olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunctions in COVID-19 patients were 11.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.41 to 23.4) when compared with acute respiratory infection (ARI) without detectable virus and 6.46 (95% CI 2.79 to 14.97) in patients with other respiratory viruses. The OR of olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients were 11.67 (95% CI 6.43 to 21.17) when compared with the ARI patients without detectable virus and 4.17 (95% CI 1.34 to 12.98) with other respiratory viruses. The OR of gustatory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients were 12.70 (95% CI 7.9 to 20.44) when compared with the ARI patients without detectable virus and 4.94 (95%CI 1.59 to 15.31) with other respiratory viruses. Fifty percent (95% CI 36.7 to 63.3%) of COVID-19 patients had olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunctions. In summary, there are associations between OGD and COVID-19 patients. Patients presenting with ARI should be assessed for olfactory and gustatory functions.

Intranasal corticosteroids for non-allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Non-allergic rhinitis is defined as dysfunction and non-infectious inflammation of the nasal mucosa that is caused by provoking agents other than allergens or microbes. It is common, with an estimated prevalence of around 10% to 20%. Patients experience symptoms of nasal obstruction, anterior rhinorrhoea/post-nasal drip and sneezing. Several subgroups of non-allergic rhinitis can be distinguished, depending on the trigger responsible for symptoms; these include occupation, cigarette smoke, hormones, medication, food and age. On a cellular molecular level different disease mechanisms can also be identified. People with non-allergic rhinitis often lack an effective treatment as a result of poor understanding and lack of recognition of the underlying disease mechanism. Intranasal corticosteroids are one of the most common types of medication prescribed in patients with rhinitis or rhinosinusitis symptoms, including those with non-allergic rhinitis. However, it is unclear whether intranasal corticosteroids are truly effective in these patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of intranasal corticosteroids in the management of non-allergic rhinitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2019, Issue 7); PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 July 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intranasal corticosteroids, delivered by any means and in any volume, with (a) placebo/no intervention or (b) other active treatments in adults and children (aged ≥ 12 years). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were patient-reported disease severity and a significant adverse effect - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes were (disease-specific) health-related quality of life, objective measurements of airflow and other adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies (4452 participants); however, only 13 studies provided data for our main comparison, intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo. The participants were mainly defined as patients with perennial rhinitis symptoms and negative allergy tests. No distinction between different pheno- and endotypes could be made, although a few studies only included a specific phenotype such as pregnancy rhinitis, vasomotor rhinitis, rhinitis medicamentosa or senile rhinitis. Most studies were conducted in a secondary or tertiary healthcare setting. No studies reported outcomes beyond three months follow-up. Intranasal corticosteroid dosage in the review ranged from 50 µg to 2000 µg daily. Intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo Thirteen studies (2045 participants) provided data for this comparison. These studies used different scoring systems for patient-reported disease severity, so we pooled the data in each analysis using the standardised mean difference (SMD). Intranasal corticosteroid treatment may improve patient-reported disease severity as measured by total nasal symptom score compared with placebo at up to four weeks (SMD -0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.15 to -0.33; 4 studies; 131 participants; I2 = 22%) (low-certainty evidence). However, between four weeks and three months the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.20; 3 studies; 85 participants; I2 = 0%) (very low-certainty evidence). Intranasal corticosteroid treatment may slightly improve patient-reported disease severity as measured by total nasal symptom score change from baseline when compared with placebo at up to four weeks (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05; 4 studies; 1465 participants; I2 = 35%) (low-certainty evidence). All four studies evaluating the risk of epistaxis showed that there is probably a higher risk in the intranasal corticosteroids group (65 per 1000) compared to placebo (31 per 1000) (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.57; 4 studies; 1174 participants; I2 = 0%) (moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute risk difference (RD) was 0.04 with a number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) of 25 (95% CI 16.7 to 100). Only one study reported numerical data for quality of life. It did report a higher quality of life score in the intranasal corticosteroids group (152.3 versus 145.6; SF-12v2 range 0 to 800); however, this disappeared at longer-term follow-up (148.4 versus 145.6) (low-certainty evidence). Only two studies provided data for the outcome objective measurements of airflow. These data could not be pooled because they used different methods of outcome measurement. Neither found a significant difference between the intranasal corticosteroids and placebo group (rhinomanometry SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.14; 44 participants; peak expiratory flow rate SMD 0.78, 95% CI -0.47 to 2.03; 11 participants) (very low-certainty evidence). Intranasal corticosteroids probably resulted in little or no difference in the risk of other adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3 studies; 1130 participants; I2 = 0%) (moderate-certainty evidence). Intranasal corticosteroids versus other treatments Only one or a few studies assessed each of the other comparisons (intranasal corticosteroids versus saline irrigation, intranasal antihistamine, capsaicin, cromoglycate sodium, ipratropium bromide, intranasal corticosteroids combined with intranasal antihistamine, intranasal corticosteroids combined with intranasal antihistamine and intranasal corticosteroids with saline compared to saline alone). It is therefore uncertain whether there are differences between intranasal corticosteroids and other active treatments for any of the outcomes reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the certainty of the evidence for most outcomes in this review was low or very low. It is unclear whether intranasal corticosteroids reduce patient-reported disease severity in non-allergic rhinitis patients compared with placebo when measured at up to three months. However, intranasal corticosteroids probably have a higher risk of the adverse effect epistaxis. There are very few studies comparing intranasal corticosteroids to other treatment modalities making it difficult to draw conclusions.

Histopathology of ethmoid mucosa versus polyp tissue in diagnosing eosinophilic mucin rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare histopathology of nasal polyp and ethmoid mucosa for diagnosing eosinophilic mucin rhinosinusitis (EMRS). METHODOLOGY: Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps (CRSwNP) were enrolled. Using eosinophilic mucin as a reference, histopathology of polyp apex, polyp pedicle and ethmoid mucosa was compared for density of tissue eosinophil and sensitivity for diagnosing EMRS. Associations with asthma were assessed for each site. RESULTS: Thirty patients with CRSwNP were enrolled. When polyp apex, polyp pedicle and ethmoid mucosa were assessed for tissue eosinophilia, consistent results were reported in 16 patients (53%). Median tissue eosinophil was greater in polyp apex (58, IQR: 7-100) than ethmoid mucosa (10, IQR: 2-21), but not different from polyp pedicle (22, IQR: 1-96). Sensitivity for diagnosing EMRS were 100% (95%CI: 47.8 - 100) for polyp apex, 60% (95%CI: 14.7 - 94.7) for polyp pedicle, 80% (95%CI: 28.4 â€" 99.5) for ethmoid mucosa. Associations with asthma were significant for polyp pedicle, and ethmoid mucosa but not polyp apex. CONCLUSION: Density of tissue eosinophil was greater in nasal polyp than in ethmoid mucosa. Histopathology of polyp apex had good sensitivity for diagnosing EMRS. Polyp pedicle and ethmoid mucosal eosinophilia associated with asthma.

Empty Nose Syndrome Pathophysiology: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The pathophysiology of empty nose syndrome (ENS) remains unclear despite significant research. The pathophysiologic mechanism of ENS was systematically reviewed. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Embase. REVIEW METHODS: Data were systematically reviewed for studies that provided original data on pathophysiology. RESULTS: A total of 2476 studies were screened, and 19 met the inclusion criteria: 13 case-control and 6 cross-sectional. Nine pathophysiologic themes were identified.• Demographics: ENS symptoms had no relationship with climatic factors.• Symptomatology: ENS patients demonstrated high symptom severity.• Mental health: Anxiety and depression including hyperventilation were reported in >50% of ENS patients and correlated with ENS symptom severity.• Anatomic features: Structural changes in response to turbinate surgery were similar between ENS and non-ENS patients.• Airflow analysis: Airflow parameters were similar between ENS and non-ENS patients after turbinate surgery. On computational fluid dynamic analysis, differences were found on multiple outcomes.• Diagnostic testing: The menthol detection test was impaired in ENS, and cotton placement in the airway improved ENS symptoms.• Cognitive function: Functional magnetic resonance imaging showed activation in emotional processing area during breathing.• Olfactory function: Subjective impairment was reported in ENS, but quantitative measures were similar to non-ENS patients.• Mucosal physiology/innate immunity: Turbinate histopathology in ENS showed a tissue-remodeling pattern. Nasal nitric oxide level was lower in ENS patients. CONCLUSION: There is evidence of high comorbid mental health disorders in ENS patients. An abnormal trigeminal-thermoreceptor response may be present in some patients. The influence of altered airflow and the evidence of surgery as the cause for ENS are unclear.

Vessel sealing system uvulopalatoplasty versus uvulopalatal flap: a randomized, controlled study of efficacy and adverse effects.

The objective of this randomized, controlled study is to compare intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative pain and postoperative adverse effects (bleeding, velopharyngeal insufficiency and others) between vessel sealing system uvulopalatoplasty (VSSU) and uvulopalatal flap (UPF). The study was conducted at the Department of Otolaryngology, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. 31 subjects with sleep-disordered breathing and obstruction at the retropalatal level were enrolled consecutively. Intervention was randomized by mixed block randomization into 2 groups (UPF, VSSU). Stratification was also done by the presence or absence of concomitant tonsillectomy. Measured outcomes, which were blinded to patients and outcome assessor, were intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative pain, postoperative bleeding, postoperative velopharyngeal insufficiency and other adverse effects. Median (IQR) of intraoperative blood loss from VSSU and UPF was 0.00 (0.00-1.00) and 6.00 (1.25-12.75) ml (p < 0.001). Median (IQR) of operative time from VSSU and UPF was 3.50 (3.00-5.00) and 15.00 (12.25-18.00) min (p < 0.001). There was significantly less pain in VSSU group on operative day (p = 0.001) and postoperative day 1 (p = 0.009). However, no significant difference of pain on postoperative day 2 to day 14 (p = 0.055-0.983) between both groups. Regarding postoperative bleeding, 1 case of immediate bleeding in UPF group and 1 case of delayed bleeding in VSSU group were found in this study. Postoperative velopharyngeal insufficiency and other adverse effects were not found in both groups. In conclusion, VSSU was better than UPF in terms of less intraoperative blood loss, less operative time and less pain in early postoperative period. Postoperative velopharyngeal insufficiency and other adverse effects were not found in both groups.

Low-dose macrolides for treating pediatric rhinosinusitis: A retrospective study and literature review.

The effects of low-dose macrolide (LDM) therapy on pediatric chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients are unknown. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of LDM for treating pediatric refractory CRS. A retrospective study was conducted by a medical chart review. Pediatric CRS patients (age <15 years) who received LDM after standard medical treatments failure between 2013 and 2019 were identified. The LDM treatments with any macrolide agents, doses, and regimens were included. Any co-interventions were allowed. Duration of the LDM therapy was ≥6 weeks. Outcomes were the total nasal symptoms by the visual analogue scale (TNS), presence of individual symptoms, physician-assessment nasal discharge and adverse events. Six patients (67% male, mean age 7±3.4 years) were assessed. All patients had failed to intranasal steroids and nasal saline irrigation but continued. The addition of LDM significantly improved TNS (mean difference ± standard deviation 5.83 ± 1.33; 95% confidence interval 4.44-7.23, p< 0.001). At the end of treatment, the numbers of patients with individual symptoms were decreased: nasal obstruction (100%-67%), rhinorrhea (83%-50%), hyposmia (50%-0%), cough (100%-33%), and physician-assessment thick mucoid discharge (33%-0%). No patients had facial pain. One patient reported mild tolerable nausea. Preliminary findings of this study showed some beneficial effects of LDM added to intranasal steroids and nasal saline irrigation in pediatric CRS after standard treatments failure. The beneficial effects included the improvements of the TNS and individual nasal symptoms and decrease in thick mucoid discharge.

Predicting bacteria causing acute bacterial rhinosinusitis by clinical features.

INTRODUCTION: Clinicians rely on clinical presentations to select therapeutic agents for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae are common in acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Drug resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae require different antibiotics. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the associations between clinical features of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis and pathogenic bacteria. METHODS: Sixty-four patients with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis were enrolled. Clinical features including nasal obstruction, discolored discharge, facial pain, smell disturbance, fever and laboratory findings of patients with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis were collected. The bacterial cultures of endoscopic middle meatal swabs were used as a reference. RESULTS: Serum C-reactive protein level elevation correlated with the bacterial species (p=0.03), by which was increased in 80.0% of Haemophilus influenzae rhinosinusitis and 57.1% of Streptococcus pneumoniae rhinosinusitis. The elevated C-reactive protein was the significant predictor for Haemophilus influenzae rhinosinusitis with the Odds Ratio of 18.06 (95% CI 2.36-138.20). The sensitivity of serum C-reactive protein level elevation for diagnosing Haemophilus influenzae rhinosinusitis was 0.80 (95% CI 0.49-0.94). CONCLUSION: Elevation of serum C-reactive protein level was associated with and predicted acute bacterial rhinosinusitis caused by Haemophilus influenzae.

Effect of Endoscopic Sinus Surgery on Bronchiectasis Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis.

Background The concept of unified airway disease has linked bronchiectasis with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), much in the same way as in asthma and CRS. Although the outcomes of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) on comorbid asthma have been relatively well studied, the outcomes of ESS on comorbid bronchiectasis have rarely been examined. Objective We sought to determine sinonasal and pulmonary clinical outcomes of ESS in bronchiectasis patients with CRS. Method We reviewed all bronchiectasis patients who had ESS for CRS at our institution from 2006 to present. The sinonasal outcome test 22 (SNOT-22) was administered preoperatively and at 3 months, 1 year, and 3 years postoperatively. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were measured preoperatively and at 6 months and 1 year post operation to assess the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), forced viral capacity (FVC), and FEV1/FVC values. Paired t test and Pearson correlation were used to compare pre- and postsurgical results. Results A total of 141 bronchiectasis patients who had ESS for CRS were studied. The most common cause of bronchiectasis was cystic fibrosis (CF) (42.55%). SNOT-22 scores improved at 3 months post operation and were maintained at 1 year and 3 years post operation ( P < .001). All SNOT sub-domains showed a significant improvement after surgery ( P < .01). However, PFTs did not change at 6 months post operation and 1 year post operation ( P > .05). There were significant differences in the outcomes in CF versus non-CF patients ( P < .05) but not by sex or age. Conclusion ESS is effective in improving long-term sinonasal outcomes in bronchiectasis patients with CRS. However, ESS does not appear to improve the pulmonary function.

Does Heating up Saline for Nasal Irrigation Improve Mucociliary Function in Chronic Rhinosinusitis?

Background Mucociliary function is affected by temperature. Exposure to cold air may impair ciliary beat frequency. While saline nasal irrigation improves in ciliary beat activity, there is no evidence supporting the use of heated saline irrigation in treating patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Objective To compare the effects of heated saline to room-temperature saline nasal irrigation on mucociliary clearance in chronic rhinosinusitis patients. Methods Adult patients with chronic rhinosinusitis were randomized into two groups receiving either heated saline or room-temperature saline nasal irrigation. Healthy subjects were included as control. Saccharin transit time was measured before and after nasal irrigation. Nasal patency was assessed by peak nasal inspiratory flow, anterior rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry, nasal obstruction score, and breathe-comfort score. Any adverse events were reported. Results Twenty-three patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and nine healthy subjects were enrolled. Saccharin transit time was decreased after nasal irrigation in both heated saline subgroup (baseline 12.3 ± 4.5 min vs. postirrigation 8.4 ± 4.9 min, p = 0.05) and room-temperature subgroup (baseline 12.8 ± 5.0 min vs. postirrigation 8.9 ± 4.2 min, p = 0.01). The saccharin transit time improvement was not different between heated saline (3.8 ± 6.2 min) and room-temperature saline (3.8 ± 4.0 min), p = 0.13. Postheated saline irrigation saccharin transit time of chronic rhinosinusitis patients (8.4 ± 4.9 min) was not different to healthy subjects (9.2 ± 3.7 min), p = 0.69. Nasal patency was not different between groups. There was no adverse event reported. Conclusion Nasal saline irrigation is beneficial to patients with chronic rhinosinusitis on mucociliary improvement. Warming saline is not necessary and adds no additional benefit to room-temperature saline irrigation.

Predicting bacteria causing acute bacterial rhinosinusitis by clinical features / Predição de bactérias causadoras de rinossinusite bacteriana aguda por características clínicas

Abstract Introduction: Clinicians rely on clinical presentations to select therapeutic agents for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae are common in acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Drug resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae require different antibiotics. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the associations between clinical features of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis and pathogenic bacteria. Methods: Sixty-four patients with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis were enrolled. Clinical features including nasal obstruction, discolored discharge, facial pain, smell disturbance, fever and laboratory findings of patients with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis were collected. The bacterial cultures of endoscopic middle meatal swabs were used as a reference. Results: Serum C-reactive protein level elevation correlated with the bacterial species (p = 0.03), by which was increased in 80.0% of Haemophilus influenzae rhinosinusitis and 57.1% of Streptococcus pneumoniae rhinosinusitis. The elevated C-reactive protein was the significant predictor for Haemophilus influenzae rhinosinusitis with the Odds Ratio of 18.06 (95% CI 2.36-138.20). The sensitivity of serum C-reactive protein level elevation for diagnosing Haemophilus influenzae rhinosinusitis was 0.80 (95% CI 0.49-0.94). Conclusion: Elevation of serum C-reactive protein level was associated with and predicted acute bacterial rhinosinusitis caused by Haemophilus influenzae.

Resumo: Introdução: Os médicos se baseiam nas características clínicas para a escolha dos agentes terapêuticos para o tratamento da rinossinusite bacteriana aguda. Streptococcus pneumoniae e Haemophilus influenzae são agentes comuns na rinossinusite bacteriana aguda. Streptococcus pneumoniae e Haemophilus influenzae resistentes a antibióticos requerem medicamentos diferentes. Objetivo: Avaliar as associações entre as características clínicas da rinossinusite bacteriana aguda e bactérias patogênicas. Método: O estudo incluiu 64 pacientes com rinossinusite bacteriana aguda. Foram coletadas e registradas as características clínicas, inclusive obstrução nasal, secreção com cor alterada, dor facial, distúrbios do olfato, febre e achados laboratoriais de pacientes com rinossinusite bacteriana aguda. As culturas bacterianas obtidas por swab endoscópico do meato médio foram usadas como referência. Resultados: A elevação do nível sérico de proteína C-reativa estava correlacionada com a espécie bacteriana (p = 0,03); ela estava aumentada em 80,0% das rinossinusites por Haemophilus influenzae e em 57,1% das rinossinusites por Streptococcus pneumoniae. A proteína C-reativa elevada foi um significativo fator preditor de rinossinusite por Haemophilus influenzae, com razão de probabilidade de 18,06 (IC 95% 2,36-138,20). A sensibilidade da elevação dos níveis séricos de proteína C-reativa para o diagnóstico de rinossinusite por Haemophilus influenzae foi de 0,80 (IC 95% 0,49 ± 0,94). Conclusão: A elevação dos níveis séricos de proteína C-reativa é um preditor de rinossinusite bacteriana aguda causada por Haemophilus influenzae.