Societal and physician perspectives on sinonasal diagnosis and treatment.

BACKGROUND: Sinusitis is diagnosed in 31 million individuals annually and has a significant impact on health care expenditures. Otolaryngologists understand that patient expectations, health knowledge, and the use of therapeutic options by patients and primary care physicians (PCPs) vary greatly. The intent of this study was to elucidate differences in the perspectives of patients, PCPs and otolaryngologists regarding the diagnosis and treatment of sinonasal disease. METHODS: Three surveys were developed with questions targeting sinonasal infections: specifically, prevalence, diagnosis, physician prescribing patterns, treatment alternatives, and referral patterns to tertiary level physicians. Surveys were distributed to adult patients (n = 113) at general health fairs, whereas surveys for PCPs (n = 54) and otolaryngologists (n = 40) were obtained from teaching conferences and professional networking events. RESULTS: In a description of viral upper respiratory tract infections (URIs), 43% of patients attributed symptoms to allergic rhinitis, 28% to URIs, and 28% to sinus infections. Despite this, 37% of patients still expected anti-bacterial agents. In patients with acute rhinosinusitis (ARS), 44% of patients would wait <1 week to see a physician whereas 82% of otolaryngologists and 57% of PCPs felt waiting 1 week or more was appropriate. In an ambulatory care setting, 45% of PCPs would chose to treat patients with 5 days of ARS symptoms whereas 32% of otolaryngologists would treat patients (p = .22). For ARS, 70% of patients expected antibiotics. Seventy percent of PCPs stated that they would refer a patient to an otolaryngologist after a single episode of sinusitis. CONCLUSION: Patients with sinonasal symptoms confuse URIs for sinusitis and expect unnecessary treatment with antibiotics. PCPs and otolaryngologists vary regarding indications for presentation to a physician, approaches to therapy, and indications for referral to a tertiary provider in their respective practices.

Targeted amelioration of cisplatin-induced ototoxicity in guinea pigs.

This pilot study compared otoprotection provided by trans-tympanic formulations and systemic intraperitoneal administration of L-N-acetylcysteine from cisplatin-induced cochlear oxidative stress. Protection was assessed by measures of hearing loss and cochlear glutathione levels. All groups received an equivalent single dose of L-N-acetylcysteine followed by cisplatin. Cisplatin was administered subcutaneously for 3 days (5.5 mg/kg/day). Two hours prior to day 1 cisplatin, L-N-acetylcysteine was administered either intraperitoneally (250 mg/kg), trans-tympanic as 2% L-N-acetylcysteine in gel, or trans-tympanic as L-N-acetylcysteine-loaded nanocapsules in gel. Hearing was assessed prior to and 3 days after cisplatin followed by microdissection of cochlear tissue. The levels of reduced (GSH) and oxidized (GSSG) glutathione in homogenized tissue supernatants were determined via luminometry. Intraperitoneal L-N-acetylcysteine administration preceding cisplatin resulted in less hearing loss and a higher GSH/GSSG ratio than either trans-tympanic formulation. This suggests that for equivalent doses of L-N-acetylcysteine, systemic rather than targeted cochlear delivery provides increased otoprotection from cisplatin ototoxicity.

Head and neck sequelae of torture.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To increase awareness of torture among otolaryngologists, and to describe methods and complications of head and neck torture. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. METHODS: Five cases of survivors of torture were evaluated in an otolaryngology practice in an urban hospital setting. RESULTS: The subjects presented with widely variable symptoms and physical manifestations related to the head and neck as a result of torture, in addition to psychiatric disease. Documentation of head and neck findings were essential to the asylum claim. CONCLUSIONS: Otolaryngologists serving immigrant and refugee populations must be familiar with methods and manifestations of torture involving the head and neck.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects long-term survival after mechanical valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the relationship between the degree of prosthesis-patient mismatch and long-term survival after mechanical aortic valve replacement. METHODS: Prospectively collected long-term follow-up data from 469 consecutive patients who underwent aortic valve replacement between 1995 and 1998 were reviewed. The indexed effective orifice area was derived from the reference normal values of effective orifice area divided by the patient's body surface area. Outcome was stratified according to the severity of prosthesis-patient mismatch: moderate mismatch was defined as 0.65 to 0.85 cm(2)/m(2) and severe mismatch as less than 0.65 cm(2)/m(2). The Cox proportional-hazards model with propensity score adjustment was used to adjust for the observed differences in baseline characteristics between the mismatch groups. RESULTS: The degree of prosthesis-patient mismatch was minimal in 57% of patients, moderate in 39%, and severe in 4%. Predictors of clinically significant mismatch included small aortic valve sizes (19 and 21 mm), obesity, age greater than 65 years, and class III or IV heart failure. During a median follow-up period of approximately 7.9 years, overall survival was 77% in patients with minimal mismatch, 63% in those with moderate mismatch, and only 47% in those with severe mismatch (P < .001). Moderate or severe mismatch was a significant predictor of poorer survival (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.3; P < .01), even after adjustment for all significant clinical predictors (ie, propensity score; hazard ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.5; P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: In a large aortic valve surgery population, prosthesis-patient mismatch occurred in 43% of patients, and those with significant mismatch had worse long-term outcomes than those with minimal mismatch.