Dataset Information

Effect of Budesonide Added to Large-Volume, Low-pressure Saline Sinus Irrigation for Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Recent studies suggest that budesonide added to saline nasal lavage can be an effective treatment for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).

Objective

To evaluate the incremental effect of adding budesonide to large-volume, low-pressure saline sinus irrigation.

Design, setting, and participants

This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial was conducted at a quaternary care academic medical center between January 1, 2016, and February 16, 2017. A total of 80 adult patients with CRS were enrolled; 74 completed baseline assessments; and 61 remained in the trial to complete all analyses. Data analysis was conducted from March 2017 to August 2017.

Interventions

All study participants were provided with a sinus rinse kit including saline and identical-appearing capsules that contained either budesonide (treatment group) or lactose (control group). Patients were instructed to dissolve the capsules in the saline and use the resulting solution to irrigate both nasal cavities, using half the solution for each cavity, once daily for 30 days.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome measure was the change in Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores, pretreatment to posttreatment, in the budesonide group compared with the control group. Secondary outcome measures included patient-reported response to treatment, as measured with a modification of the Clinical Global Impressions scale, and endoscopic examination scored by the Lund-Kennedy grading system.

Results

Of the 74 participants who completed baseline assessments (37 in each study arm), mean (SD) age, 51 (14.7) years, 50 (68%) were women. Of the 61 who remained in the trial to complete all analyses, 29 were randomized to budesonide treatment, and 32 to saline alone. The average change in SNOT-22 scores was 20.7 points for those in the budesonide group and 13.6 points for those in the control group, for a mean difference of 7 points in favor of the budesonide group (95% CI, -2 to 16). A total of 23 participants (79%) in the budesonide group experienced a clinically meaningful reduction in their SNOT-22 scores compared with 19 (59%) in the control group, for a difference of 20% (95% CI, -2.5% to 42.5%). The average change in endoscopic scores was 3.4 points for the budesonide group and 2.7 points for the control group. There were no related adverse events.

Conclusions and relevance

This study shows that budesonide in saline nasal lavage results in clinically meaningful benefits beyond the benefits of saline alone for patients with CRS. Given the imprecision in the treatment effect, further research is warranted to define the true effect of budesonide in saline nasal lavage.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02696850.

SUBMITTER: Tait S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6145785 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe sinus lift (or sinus augmentation) is a common procedure to improve maxillary bone stock before dental implantation. Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a potential complication of this procedure and may be refractory to medical treatment. Functional endoscopic sinus surgery has previously been used to address CRS, however, results of previous studies indicated that implant removal is required. There are limited follow-up data available.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to characterize the long-term outcomes and efficacy of endoscopic sinus surgery for refractory CRS after sinus lift, including the ability to salvage dental implants.MethodsThis was a retrospective case series that described nine patients who, between June 2011 and September 2016, underwent endoscopic sinus surgery for CRS after a sinus lift procedure. The presenting symptoms of the patients, medical management, imaging results, operative procedures, and outcomes were reviewed.ResultsThe majority of patients developed symptoms (mucopurulent nasal drainage, facial pain and/or pressure, nasal congestion, and foul smell) within 3 months of implant placement and were treated with at least three courses of antibiotics before referral to an otolaryngologist. All the patients underwent wide endoscopic maxillary antrostomy, with no surgical complications or postoperative reports of infection. There was a statistically significant improvement in 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test scores (t(8) = -2.908; p = 0.02) and discharge, inflammation, and polyps/edema endoscopic scores ([z = -2.539; p = 0.011) between pre- and postsurgical treatment. Four patients had their dental implants removed before presentation. Among the five patients who presented with intact dental implants, none required removal before or after functional endoscopic sinus surgery.ConclusionFunctional endoscopic sinus surgery was a reasonable and efficacious treatment option for patients who presented with paranasal sinus disease after a sinus lift. Dental implant removal may not be a requirement for successful treatment of CRS associated with sinus lift procedures.

Project description:The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) devices and NPWT with and without simultaneous irrigation in patients admitted to hospital with moderate and severe foot infections. Ninety patients were randomized in a 12-week prospective, randomized noninferiority trial to compare wound healing in patients with moderate and severe infected foot wounds treated with NPWT after surgery. Inclusion criteria included ABI > 0.5 or toe pressures >30 PVR/mmHg, >18 years of age and exclusion included active Charcot arthropathy, collagen vascular disease, HIV, and hypercoagulable state. We compared two different traditional devices, NPWT-K (KCI, VAC Ulta) and NPWT-C (Cardinal, PRO), and NPWT-I with saline irrigation (Cardinal, PRO). All patients had therapy delivered at 125 mmHg continuous pressure. In patients who received simultaneous saline irrigation (NPWT-I), the administration rate was 15 ml per hour. The primary outcome was the proportion of healed wounds in 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included surgical wound closure, number of surgeries, length of stay, and time to wound healing. Continuous data was presented as mean ± standard deviation. Analysis of variance was used to compare continuous variables and chi-square to compare dichotomous variables with an alpha of 0.05. There were no differences in outcomes among NPWT-I, NPWT-C, and NPWT-K groups in proportion of healed wounds (63.3%, 50.0%, 46.7% p = 0.39), surgical wound closure (83.3%, 80.0%, 63.3%, p = 0.15), number of surgeries (2.0 ± 0.49, 2.4 ± 0.77, 2.4 ± 0.68, p = 0.06), length of stay (16.3 ± 15.7, 14.7 ± 7.4, 15.3 ± 10.5 days, p = 0.87), time to wound healing (46.2 ± 22.8, 40.9 ± 18.8, 45.9 ± 28.3 days, p = 0.78). We did not identify any significant differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events between patients treated with different NPWT devices or NPWT with and without irrigation.