MyMedR

Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Tranexamic acid for the reduction of bleeding during functional endoscopic sinus surgery

Lourijsen E, Avdeeva K, Gan KL, Pundir V, Fokkens W

Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2023 Feb 21;2(2):CD012843.
PMID: 36808096 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012843.pub2

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis, with or without nasal polyps, can have a major impact on a person's quality of life. Treatment is usually conservative and may include nasal saline, intranasal corticosteroids, antibiotics or systemic corticosteroids. If these treatments fail endoscopic sinus surgery can be considered. During surgery, visibility of the surgical field is important for the identification of important anatomic landmarks and structures that contribute to safety. Impaired visualisation can lead to complications during surgery, inability to complete the operation or a longer duration of surgery. Different methods are used to decrease intraoperative bleeding, including induced hypotension, topical or systemic vasoconstrictors or total intravenous anaesthesia. Another option is tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic agent, which can be administered topically or intravenously.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of peri-operative tranexamic acid versus no therapy or placebo on operative parameters in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (with or without nasal polyps) who are undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS).
SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 10 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intravenous, oral or topical tranexamic acid with no therapy or placebo in the treatment of patients (adults and children) with chronic rhinosinusitis, with or without nasal polyps, undergoing FESS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcome measures were surgical field bleeding score (e.g. Wormald or Boezaart grading system), intraoperative blood loss and significant adverse effects (seizures or thromboembolism within 12 weeks of surgery). Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery, incomplete surgery, surgical complications and postoperative bleeding (placing of packing or revision surgery) in the first two weeks after surgery. We performed subgroup analyses for methods of administration, different dosages, different forms of anaesthesia, use of thromboembolic prophylaxis and children versus adults. We evaluated each included study for risk of bias and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies in the review, with a total of 942 participants. Sample sizes in the included studies ranged from 10 to 170. All but two studies included adult patients (≥ 18 years). Two studies included children. Most studies had more male patients (range 46.6% to 80%). All studies were placebo-controlled and four studies had three treatment arms. Three studies investigated topical tranexamic acid; the other studies reported the use of intravenous tranexamic acid. For our primary outcome, surgical field bleeding score measured with the Boezaart or Wormald grading score, we pooled data from 13 studies. The pooled result demonstrated that tranexamic acid probably reduces the surgical field bleeding score, with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of -0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.51; 13 studies, 772 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A SMD below -0.70 represents a large effect (in either direction). Tranexamic acid may result in a slight reduction in blood loss during surgery compared to placebo with a mean difference (MD) of -70.32 mL (95% CI -92.28 to -48.35 mL; 12 studies, 802 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tranexamic acid probably has little to no effect on the development of significant adverse events (seizures or thromboembolism) within 24 hours of surgery, with no events in either group and a risk difference (RD) of 0.00 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 8 studies, 664 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there were no studies reporting significant adverse event data with a longer duration of follow-up. Tranexamic acid probably results in little difference in the duration of surgery with a MD of -13.04 minutes (95% CI -19.27 to -6.81; 10 studies, 666 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Tranexamic acid probably results in little to no difference in the incidence of incomplete surgery, with no events in either group and a RD of 0.00 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.09; 2 studies, 58 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and likely results in little to no difference in surgical complications, again with no events in either group and a RD of 0.00 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.09; 2 studies, 58 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although these numbers are too small to draw robust conclusions. Tranexamic acid may result in little to no difference in the likelihood of postoperative bleeding (placement of packing or revision surgery within three days of surgery) (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 6 studies, 404 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no studies with longer follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence to support the beneficial value of topical or intravenous tranexamic acid during endoscopic sinus surgery with respect to surgical field bleeding score. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests a slight decrease in total blood loss during surgery and duration of surgery. Whilst there is moderate-certainty evidence that tranexamic acid does not lead to more immediate significant adverse events compared to placebo, there is no evidence regarding the risk of serious adverse events more than 24 hours after surgery. There is low-certainty evidence that tranexamic acid may not change postoperative bleeding. There is not enough evidence available to draw robust conclusions about incomplete surgery or surgical complications.
Outcome measures for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

Sedaghat AR, Campbell RG, Douglas RG, Fokkens WJ, Hamizan AW, Korban ZR, et al.

Rhinology, 2024 Aug 31;62(34):1-37.
PMID: 38829175 DOI: 10.4193/Rhin24.090

BACKGROUND: With the recent proliferation of novel therapeutics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), there is an immediate need for comprehensive means to assess CRSwNP disease status as well as to determine treatment efficacy. Outcome measures exist in different forms. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) allow patients to provide direct input about their condition that is not possible to obtain in any other way. Common constructs that are measured using PROMs include quality of life or the burden of disease manifestations (e.g., symptom severity). Outcomes may also include the results of objective diagnostic testing/measurement of clinical signs or measured using psychophysical tests. Biomarkers represent an emerging class of outcome measures for CRSwNP and are chosen to directly reflect the active pathophysiologic processes of CRSwNP in the peripheral blood, sinus/polyp tissues, and sinonasal mucus.
METHODS: Narrative review of the literature, identifying and describing outcome measures that may be used in the evaluation of CRSwNP and for assessment of treatment responses.
RESULTS: In this review, we identify many different outcome measures for CRSwNP that fall under the categories of PROM, objective test, psychophysical test or biomarker. We describe the history of each - including seminal studies - and demonstrate the formal validation, psychometric performance, and limitations of each.
CONCLUSIONS: PROMs, objective tests, psychophysical tests and biomarkers represent different classes of outcome measures that are complementary means of assessing CRSwNP disease status and treatment efficacy. The choice or interpretation of a CRSwNP outcome measure should be undertaken with full knowledge of its formal validation, psychometric performance, and limitations.
A survey on the management of acute rhinosinusitis among Asian physicians

Wang DY, Wardani RS, Singh K, Thanaviratananich S, Vicente G, Xu G, et al.

Rhinology, 2011 Aug;49(3):264-71.
PMID: 21866280 DOI: 10.4193/Rhino10.169

BACKGROUND: Based on the `European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal polyps (EP3OS 2007)`, this study aimed to investigate general practitioners (GPs) and other specialists` understanding when managing patients with acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) in Asia.
METHODOLOGY: Among a total of 2662 questionnaires completed, 2524 (94.8%) were valid for analysis. There were 1308 GPs (51.8%), 989 otolaryngologists (39.2%) and 227 paediatricians (9%) from Mainland China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Taiwan.
RESULTS: ARS is affecting an estimated 6 - 10% of patients seen in a daily out-patient practice. The EP3OS criteria are well supported by Asian physicians (94.1%). Most physicians (62.7%) agreed that radiological investigation is not needed to diagnose ARS. However, even for mild ARS (common cold), medical treatments were still recommended by 87% of GPs, 83.9% of otolaryngologists, and 70% of paediatricians. The top three first-line treatments prescribed were antihistamines (39.2%), nasal decongestants (33.6%), and antibiotics (29.5%). Antibiotics usage increased as the first line treatment of moderate (45.9%) and severe (60.3%) ARS.
CONCLUSION: ARS is commonly managed by GPs, otolaryngologists, and paediatricians in Asia. However, understanding of the management of ARS needs further improvement to minimize unnecessary use of radiological investigations, overuse of antibiotics, and under use of nasal corticosteroids.
European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020

Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Hopkins C, Hellings PW, Kern R, Reitsma S, et al.

Rhinology, 2020 Feb 20;58(Suppl S29):1-464.
PMID: 32077450 DOI: 10.4193/Rhin20.600

The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020 is the update of similar evidence based position papers published in 2005 and 2007 and 2012. The core objective of the EPOS2020 guideline is to provide revised, up-to-date and clear evidence-based recommendations and integrated care pathways in ARS and CRS. EPOS2020 provides an update on the literature published and studies undertaken in the eight years since the EPOS2012 position paper was published and addresses areas not extensively covered in EPOS2012 such as paediatric CRS and sinus surgery. EPOS2020 also involves new stakeholders, including pharmacists and patients, and addresses new target users who have become more involved in the management and treatment of rhinosinusitis since the publication of the last EPOS document, including pharmacists, nurses, specialised care givers and indeed patients themselves, who employ increasing self-management of their condition using over the counter treatments. The document provides suggestions for future research in this area and offers updated guidance for definitions and outcome measurements in research in different settings. EPOS2020 contains chapters on definitions and classification where we have defined a large number of terms and indicated preferred terms. A new classification of CRS into primary and secondary CRS and further division into localized and diffuse disease, based on anatomic distribution is proposed. There are extensive chapters on epidemiology and predisposing factors, inflammatory mechanisms, (differential) diagnosis of facial pain, allergic rhinitis, genetics, cystic fibrosis, aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease, immunodeficiencies, allergic fungal rhinosinusitis and the relationship between upper and lower airways. The chapters on paediatric acute and chronic rhinosinusitis are totally rewritten. All available evidence for the management of acute rhinosinusitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyps in adults and children is systematically reviewed and integrated care pathways based on the evidence are proposed. Despite considerable increases in the amount of quality publications in recent years, a large number of practical clinical questions remain. It was agreed that the best way to address these was to conduct a Delphi exercise . The results have been integrated into the respective sections. Last but not least, advice for patients and pharmacists and a new list of research needs are included. The full document can be downloaded for free on the website of this journal: http://www.rhinologyjournal.com.
Rhinitis associated with asthma is distinct from rhinitis alone: The ARIA-MeDALL hypothesis

Bousquet J, Melén E, Haahtela T, Koppelman GH, Togias A, Valenta R, et al.

Allergy, 2023 Feb 17.
PMID: 36799120 DOI: 10.1111/all.15679

Asthma, rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis (AD) are interrelated clinical phenotypes that partly overlap in the human interactome. The concept of "one-airway-one-disease," coined over 20 years ago, is a simplistic approach of the links between upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases. With new data, it is time to reassess the concept. This article reviews (i) the clinical observations that led to Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), (ii) new insights into polysensitization and multimorbidity, (iii) advances in mHealth for novel phenotype definitions, (iv) confirmation in canonical epidemiologic studies, (v) genomic findings, (vi) treatment approaches, and (vii) novel concepts on the onset of rhinitis and multimorbidity. One recent concept, bringing together upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases with skin, gut, and neuropsychiatric multimorbidities, is the "Epithelial Barrier Hypothesis." This review determined that the "one-airway-one-disease" concept does not always hold true and that several phenotypes of disease can be defined. These phenotypes include an extreme "allergic" (asthma) phenotype combining asthma, rhinitis, and conjunctivitis. Rhinitis alone and rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity represent two distinct diseases with the following differences: (i) genomic and transcriptomic background (Toll-Like Receptors and IL-17 for rhinitis alone as a local disease; IL-33 and IL-5 for allergic and non-allergic multimorbidity as a systemic disease), (ii) allergen sensitization patterns (mono- or pauci-sensitization versus polysensitization), (iii) severity of symptoms, and (iv) treatment response. In conclusion, rhinitis alone (local disease) and rhinitis with asthma multimorbidity (systemic disease) should be considered as two distinct diseases, possibly modulated by the microbiome, and may be a model for understanding the epidemics of chronic and autoimmune diseases.