Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Washington, Box 356515, Seattle, WA 98195, United States of America.
Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy & Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, PO Box 356130, Courier BB-302, Seattle, WA 98195, United States of America.
Am J Otolaryngol. 2020 Sep-Oct;41(5):102604. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102604. Epub 2020 Jun 6.
The role of topical anti-infectives in acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis is controversial. Povidone-iodine is an anti-bacterial and anti-viral that is affordable and available over-the-counter and may demonstrate advantages over mupirocin as a sinus irrigation therapy. The objective was to compare povidone-iodine or mupirocin versus saline sinus irrigations for sinusitis exacerbations in post-surgery subjects as well as to assess tolerability of povidone-iodine sinus irrigations.
This was a prospective single-blinded (clinician only) randomized controlled trial. Subjects were post-surgery with acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis and gram-positive bacteria on culture. They received povidone-iodine, mupirocin, or saline sinus irrigations, twice daily for 30 days. Outcomes were post-treatment culture negativity (primary) and Sinonasal Outcome Test-20 and Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score change (secondary).
Of the 62 subjects analyzed, post-treatment culture negativity rate was higher in the MUP (14/20, 70%) group compared to the PI (9/21, 43%) and SAL (9/19, 47%) groups, although this was not significant (p = 0.29). Povidone-iodine sinus irrigations at the 1% concentration were very well-tolerated, similar to saline irrigations. There were no significant differences in Sinonasal Outcome Test-20 score (povidone-iodine -0.3 [-0.6, 0.05] vs. mupirocin -0.3 [-0.7, 0.05] vs. saline -0.4 [-0.8, 0.05]; p = 0.86) or Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score (povidone-iodine -3.5 [-7, -0.5] vs. mupirocin -2 [-4, 2] vs. saline -3 [-5, 0]; p = 0.45) change. No serious adverse effects were reported.
In patients who have had prior sinus surgery with acute exacerbations of CRS and gram-positive bacteria on culture, mupirocin sinus irrigations achieved a better post-treatment culture "control" rate compared to saline and povidone-iodine. In addition, 1% povidone-iodine solution was well-tolerated as a sinus irrigation and may represent a feasible method for temporarily disinfecting the sinonasal cavity of bacteria and viruses such as COVID-19.
局部抗感染药物在慢性鼻-鼻窦炎急性加重期的作用存在争议。聚维酮碘是一种具有抗菌和抗病毒作用的药物,价格低廉,可在柜台上买到,作为鼻窦冲洗疗法,其可能优于莫匹罗星。目的是比较聚维酮碘或莫匹罗星与盐水鼻窦冲洗治疗鼻窦手术后患者的鼻窦炎加重,同时评估聚维酮碘鼻窦冲洗的耐受性。
这是一项前瞻性、单盲(仅对临床医生)随机对照试验。研究对象为鼻窦手术后伴有慢性鼻-鼻窦炎急性加重和革兰阳性菌培养阳性的患者。他们接受聚维酮碘、莫匹罗星或生理盐水鼻窦冲洗,每天两次,持续 30 天。主要结局为治疗后培养阴性(主要)和鼻-鼻窦炎结局测试-20 评分和 Lund-Kennedy 内镜评分变化(次要)。
在 62 名接受分析的患者中,MUP(20 例中的 14 例,70%)组治疗后的培养阴性率高于 PI(21 例中的 9 例,43%)和 SAL(19 例中的 9 例,47%)组,尽管差异无统计学意义(p=0.29)。1%浓度的聚维酮碘鼻窦冲洗耐受性良好,与生理盐水冲洗相似。鼻-鼻窦炎结局测试-20 评分无显著差异(聚维酮碘-0.3[-0.6,0.05]与莫匹罗星-0.3[-0.7,0.05]与生理盐水-0.4[-0.8,0.05];p=0.86)或 Lund-Kennedy 内镜评分(聚维酮碘-3.5[-7,-0.5]与莫匹罗星-2[-4,2]与生理盐水-3[-5,0];p=0.45)变化。未报告严重不良事件。
在既往鼻窦手术伴 CRS 急性加重和革兰阳性菌培养阳性的患者中,与生理盐水和聚维酮碘相比,莫匹罗星鼻窦冲洗治疗后获得了更好的培养“控制”率。此外,1%聚维酮碘溶液作为鼻窦冲洗剂耐受性良好,可能是一种可行的方法,可暂时对 COVID-19 等细菌和病毒进行消毒。