Literature DB >> 29774747

Hypertonic Saline Versus Isotonic Saline Nasal Irrigation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Dichapong Kanjanawasee1,2, Kachorn Seresirikachorn1,2, Wirach Chitsuthipakorn3, Kornkiat Snidvongs1,2.   

Abstract

Background Saline nasal lavage is one of the treatments of sinonasal diseases. Evidence from basic research favors hypertonic saline (HS) over isotonic saline (IS) for mucociliary clearance, but evidence from clinical studies is controversial. Conversely, HS may carry greater side effects. Objective To compare the effects of HS and IS nasal irrigation in treating sinonasal diseases. Methods Systematic search with Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Manual additional sources was conducted. Randomized controlled trials comparing HS with IS nasal irrigation in treating any sinonasal diseases, including rhinitis and rhinosinusitis, were included. Data were pooled for meta-analyses. Outcomes were symptom scores, sinonasal outcome test (SNOT), and adverse events. Heterogeneity was explored by subgroup analyses. Results Nine studies (740 patients) were included. HS nasal irrigation brought greater benefits over IS in symptom reduction (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.76, -0.40); however, no difference was shown in SNOT-20 improvement (mean difference 1.81; 95% CI: -0.68, 4.30). In subgroup analyses, effects favoring HS on symptoms were larger in 4 subgroups. These were (1) patients with rhinitis (SMD -1.09; 95% CI: -1.42, -0.76) compared with rhinosinusitis (SMD -0.37; 95% CI: -0.58, -0.15), P < .01; (2) patients under the age of 18 years (SMD -1.22; 95% CI: -1.53, -0.91) compared with patients over the age of 18 years (SMD -0.26; 95% CI: -0.49, -0.04), P < .01; (3) saline irrigation using high volume (SMD -0.89; 95% CI: -1.18, -0.60) compared with low volume (SMD -0.39; 95% CI: -0.62, -0.16), P < .01; and (4) saline irrigation with hypertonicity of <3% (SMD -1.09; 95% CI: -1.42, -0.76) and hypertonicity of 3%-5% (SMD -1.20; 95% CI: -1.61, -0.78) compared with hypertonicity of >5% (SMD 0.20; 95% CI: -0.15, 0.55), P < .01. Buffered saline and operative status did not have impact. HS brought greater minor adverse effects. No major adverse effects were reported. Conclusion HS improves symptoms over IS nasal irrigation in treating sinonasal diseases. There is no difference in disease-specific quality of life. However, HS brings greater minor side effects than IS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  hypertonic saline; isotonic saline; mucociliary clearance; nasal irrigation; nasal lavage; randomized controlled trial; rhinitis; rhinosinusitis; sinonasal disease; sinonasal outcome test

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29774747     DOI: 10.1177/1945892418773566

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Rhinol Allergy        ISSN: 1945-8932            Impact factor:   2.467


  14 in total

1.  Results of a RCT assessing saline and xylitol nasal irrigation for CRS and fatigue in Gulf War illness.

Authors:  David Rabago; Tony Kille; Marlon Mundt; Chidi Obasi
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-07-07

2.  Effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices: a Thai multicentre survey.

Authors:  Patorn Piromchai; Charoiboon Puvatanond; Virat Kirtsreesakul; Saisawat Chaiyasate; Sanguansak Thanaviratananich
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-05-27       Impact factor: 2.984

Review 3.  Topical Oral and Intranasal Antiviral Agents for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Authors:  Victor B Hsue; Kyohei Itamura; Arthur W Wu; Elisa A Illing; Kevin J Sokoloski; Bree A Weaver; Benjamin P Anthony; Nathan Hughes; Jonathan Y Ting; Thomas S Higgins
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2021       Impact factor: 2.622

4.  Role of pharmacists during the COVID-19 pandemic in China-Shanghai experiences.

Authors:  Yun Liao; Chunlai Ma; Alan H Lau; Mingkang Zhong
Journal:  J Am Coll Clin Pharm       Date:  2020-08-20

Review 5.  Current Perspective on Nasal Delivery Systems for Chronic Rhinosinusitis.

Authors:  Junhu Tai; Kijeong Lee; Tae Hoon Kim
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 6.321

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

Authors:  Patorn Piromchai; Charoiboon Puvatanond; Virat Kirtsreesakul; Saisawat Chaiyasate; Triphoom Suwanwech
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-11-16

7.  Safety for the Rhinologist in the Age of COVID-19: Mask Use, Nasal Corticosteroids, Saline Irrigation, and Endoscopic Procedures - Literature Review.

Authors:  Eduardo Macoto Kosugi; Jonatas Figueiredo Villa; Henrique Faria Ramos; Gabriela Ricci Luz-Matsumoto; Thiago Luis Infanger Serrano; Carlos Augusto Correia de Campos; Carolina Cincurá Barreto; Clara Mônica Lima; Marco Aurélio Fornazieri; Otavio Piltcher; Marcus Miranda Lessa; Fabrizio Ricci Romano
Journal:  Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-01-25

Review 8.  The Nose as a Route for Therapy: Part 1. Pharmacotherapy.

Authors:  Cemal Cingi; Nuray Bayar Muluk; Dimitrios I Mitsias; Nikolaos G Papadopoulos; Ludger Klimek; Anu Laulajainen-Hongisto; Maija Hytönen; Sanna Katriina Toppila-Salmi; Glenis Kathleen Scadding
Journal:  Front Allergy       Date:  2021-02-22

9.  Clinical Practice Guideline: Nasal Irrigation for Chronic Rhinosinusitis in Adults.

Authors:  Do-Yang Park; Ji Ho Choi; Dong-Kyu Kim; Yong Gi Jung; Sue Jean Mun; Hyun Jin Min; Soo Kyoung Park; Jae-Min Shin; Hyung Chae Yang; Seung-No Hong; Ji-Hun Mo
Journal:  Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 3.372

10.  The Impact of the Thermal Seasons on Adenoid Size, Its Mucus Coverage and Otitis Media with Effusion: A Cohort Study.

Authors:  Krystyna Masna; Aleksander Zwierz; Krzysztof Domagalski; Paweł Burduk
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-11-28       Impact factor: 4.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.