APPLICATION OF ADJUNCTIVE INTRANASAL NITRIC OXIDE SPRAY IN PATIENTS WITH ACUTE RHINOSINUSITIS AT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HO CHI MINH CITY, 2024–2025
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the clinical features and treatment efficacy of adjunctive intranasal Nitric Oxide (NO) spray in patients with acute rhinosinusitis. Subjects and Methods: This was a longitudinal prospective case series study was conducted on 103 patients diagnosed with acute rhinosinusitis at the University Medical Center in Ho Chi Minh City from December 2024 to May 2025. Results: The study included 103 patients (31 males – 30.1%, 72 females – 69.9%) with a median age of 36 years (IQR: 30–48). On day 0, common severe symptoms included frequent need to blow nose (68.9%), nasal congestion (53.4%), sneezing (51.5%), and anterior rhinorrhea (50.5%). Otologic/facial symptoms and sleep disturbances were mostly mild. Regarding treatment efficacy, SNOT-22 scores decreased more rapidly in the NO spray group from day 7 (43.32 ± 4.71 vs 52.94 ± 6.19; p < 0.001), remained significantly lower on day 14 (32.03 ± 5.01 vs. 44.47 ± 7.24), and became almost comparable by day 28 (27.12 ± 4.50 vs. 31.12 ± 4.89). Similarly, the modified Lund–Kennedy endoscopy scores (MLK) was initially higher in the NO spray group (4.94 ± 0.94 vs. 3.88 ± 1.84; p < 0.001), but show faster improvement on day 7 (2.68 ± 0.78 vs. 3.35 ± 1.28; p = 0.001), becoming comparable by day 14 (p = 0.584). Conclusion: Patients treated with adjunctive intranasal NO spray showed experienced faster and more significant symptom improvement than the control group within the first treatment week. The differences between the two groups decreased over time, highlighting the pronounced effect NO in the acute phase. By day 28, both groups achieved good recovery, but the NO group achieved stable outcomes earlier.
Article Details
Keywords
Acute rhinosinusitis, Modification of the Lund-Kennedy (MLK), Adjunctive Intranasal Nitric Oxide Spray
References
2. Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet Lond Engl. 2022;399(10325):629–655.
3. Hải NV. Nghiên cứu đặc điểm lâm sàng, cận lâm sàng của viêm xoang hàm một bên [Internet] [PhD Thesis]. Trường Đại học Y Hà Nội; 2018. https://dulieuso.hmu.edu.vn/handle/hmu/530.
4. Plath M, Sand M, Cavaliere C, et al. Normative data for interpreting the SNOT-22. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2023;43(6):390–399.
5. Mohammad I, Stack T, Norris M, et al. The Surprising Effect of Priming on SNOT-22 Results. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2024;38(3):153–158.
6. Arcimowicz M. Acute sinusitis in daily clinical practice. Otolaryngol Pol Pol Otolaryngol. 2021;75(4):40–50.
7. Engels EA, Terrin N, Barza M, et al. Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests for acute sinusitis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(8):852–862.
8. Kennedy JL, Hubbard MA, Huyett P, et al. Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22): A predictor of post-surgical improvement in patients with chronic sinusitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Off Publ Am Coll Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2013;111(4):246-251.e2.