Anterior Rhinomanometry and Determination of Nasal Mucociliary Clearance Time With the Saccharin Test in Children With Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever
AuthorAltuntas, Emine Elif
Uysal, Ismail Onder
MetadataShow full item record
Objectives: Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF), like other viral infections, may prolong mucociliary clearance time and increase nasal resistance in children. The aim of the present prospective case-control study was to study, using saccharin and anterior rhinomanometry tests, whether CCHF infections caused any change in nasal physiology. Methods: Overall, 40 subjects, 20 of whom had CCHF (group 1) and 20 of whom were healthy controls (group 2), were enrolled in this study. The definitive diagnosis of CCHF infection was made based on typical clinical and epidemiological findings and detection of CCHF virus-specific IgM by ELISA or of genomic segments of the CCHF virus by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Anterior rhinomanometry was performed in all participants according to current recommendations of the Committee Report on Standardization of Rhinomanometry. A saccharin test was used to evaluate mucociliary clearance, and nasal mucociliary clearance time was assessed with the saccharin test as described previously. Results: In our patients, the mean time from the application of saccharin crystals to the first feeling of a sweet taste was 6.77 +/- 3.25 minutes (range 2-16 min). In terms of the mean time from the application of saccharin crystals to the first feeling of a sweet taste, there was no difference between two groups. The mean total air flow was 637.60 +/- 76.18 mL/s (range 490-760 mL/s). The mean total nasal airway resistance was 0.24 +/- 0.03 Pa/mL s (range 0.20-0.31 Pa/mL s). In terms of the degree of nasal air flow and nasal airway resistance and the total air flow and total nasal airway resistance of each nostril, there was no difference between the 2 groups. Conclusions: The results obtained in anterior rhinomanometry and saccharin test showed that there was no statistically significant difference between CCHF (+) patients and controls. These results suggest us that CCHF virus infection does not affect nasal physiology. However, this is the first study performed on this issue and further studies on larger series need to be performed.