A multicenter survey on the effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices in rhinosinusitis patients

Sleep and psychological disorders seriously affect the quality of life of chronic rhinosinusitis patients

PURPOSE

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common disease that affects patients' quality of life (QoL). We aim to explore which symptoms bothered the patient most.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of CRS patients 2 years after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The main observation indicators were SNOT-22 and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. The patients were grouped according to clinical control standard of EPOS 2020. Patients' symptom scores and postoperative medication were used for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 276 patients were included, among them, uncontrolled patients accounted for 23.9%, sense of taste/smell, fatigue, lacking of a good night's sleep, reduced concentration and reduced productivity were the most serious symptoms that troubled them. VAS and SNOT-22 scores were significantly different among all groups (P = 0.000), and had clinical significance for the diagnosis of clinical uncontrolled patients (both P < 0.0001). Furthermore, the duration of corticosteroids use and nasal saline irrigation in uncontrolled patients was significantly longer than that in other patients (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

There are significant differences in the QoL of CRS patients with different clinical control, sleep and psychological disorders are main symptoms that affect the QoL of CRS patients, and more targeted management of sleep/psychological issues may be needed especially for uncontrolled patients.

Benefits of nasal saline treatment in acute rhinosinusitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although nasal saline treatments are widely used in treating acute rhinosinusitis (ARS), the evidence in adult patients is inconclusive. Our objective was to assess the add-on benefits of saline treatment in adults with ARS.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed (updated May 9, 2021). Randomized, controlled trials studying the effects of nasal saline treatment in adults with ARS were included. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Outcomes were composite symptoms score (CSS), disease-specific quality-of-life (DS-QoL) score, individual symptom score, endoscopy score, saccharin transit time, cure rate, days to resolution, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (718 patients) were included in our investigation. Nasal discharge was the only symptom improved (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.66 to -0.05]. Saline as an add-on treatment brought no benefit to CSS and DS-QoL score at both time-points (3-10 days and at the end of the study). Other outcomes also showed no benefits with use of saline, including endoscopy score, saccharin transit time, cure rate, days to resolution, and adverse events. Subgroup analyses showed improvement in viral ARS patients for CSS (SMD, -0.60; 95% CI, -1.12 to -0.08) and DS-QoL score (mean difference, -15.90; 95% CI, -31.78 to -0.02), and also in patients using high-volume saline (SMD, -0.42; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.06).

CONCLUSION

Nasal saline as an add-on treatment improved rhinorrhea. There was no improvement in CSS and DS-QoL, except among the subgroup of viral ARS patients using high-volume saline. There were no differences in adverse events between the saline and non-saline treatments.

Effects of large volume, isotonic nasal saline irrigation for acute rhinosinusitis: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of nasal saline irrigation (large volume, positive pressure isotonic saline) in addition to standard treatment in patients with acute rhinosinusitis (ARS).

METHODS

This parallel, randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital. The adult patients with ARS (age ≥18 years) were randomly assigned to two groups. The irrigation group received 0.9% saline irrigation twice daily, using a 250-ml squeeze bottle, in addition to standard treatment. The no-irrigation group received standard treatment only. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 1 week, and 2 weeks. The quality of life, rhinologic subscore, symptom score, endoscopy score, and cure rate were compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients (30: irrigation, 31: no-irrigation) were enrolled. There were 17 males and 44 females. The mean age was 41.06 years. Although both groups showed improvements, the improvement of each outcome was not different between the groups. Subgroup analysis by ARS subtype showed benefits of irrigation in the common cold subgroup; the improvements that were greater than control included: rhinologic subscore, intergroup mean difference -4.15 [95% confidence interval (CI), -7.49, -0.80] at 1 week and -5.23 [95% CI, -9.69, -0.78] at 2 weeks; combined symptom score -5.35 [95% CI, -10.55, -0.14] at 1 week and -8.02 [95%CI, -14.36, -1.70] at 2 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The add-on isotonic nasal saline irrigation using a large volume, positive pressure device did not add benefits equally for all ARS patients. The benefits of irrigation on quality of life and nasal symptoms were only observed in the common cold patient subgroup.

Current Perspective on Nasal Delivery Systems for Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Chronic rhinosinusitis is an upper respiratory disease during which topical drug treatment via the nasal cavity is the most actively utilized therapeutic strategy. In addition to steroids, antibiotics, and antifungal agents, which are widely used in clinical practice, research on novel topical agents to improve the bacterial biofilm or mucociliary clearance remains ongoing. Moreover, owing to the complex structure of the nasal cavity, the effects of nasal drug delivery vary depending on factors related to delivery fluid dynamics, including device, volume, and compounds. In this article, we review methods and compounds that have been applied to chronic rhinosinusitis management and introduce recent advances and future perspectives in nasal drug delivery for upper respiratory diseases.