Molecular Identification and Clinical Features of Fungal Rhinosinusitis: A 3-Year Experience With 108 Patients Publisher Pubmed



Raiesi O¹ ; Hashemi SJ¹ ; Mohammadi Ardehali M² ; Ahmadikia K¹ ; Getso MI³ ; Pakdel F⁴ ; Rezaie S¹ ; Dai Ghazvini R¹ ; Khodavaisy S¹ ; Gerami Shoar M¹ ; Borjian Boroujeni Z¹ Show Affiliations
Source: Microbial Pathogenesis Published:2021

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the prevalence, the causative agents, clinical features, and the risk factors associated with the fungal rhinosinusitis in a tertiary health center with a view to providing valid grounds that may guide healthcare professionals to effectively prevent, control, and treat fungal infections. All patients were subjected to diagnostic nasal endoscopy and CT scan of paranasal sinuses and FRS were confirmed by routine and complementary mycological and molecular methods. The inclusion criteria for invasive FRS were: confirmed diagnosis of IFRS according to the guidelines of the EORTC/MSG criteria (i.e., clinical, microbiological, and histological evidence of invasive fungal infection). From a total of 512 suspected patients, FRS was confirmed in 108 cases (21.1%). Our results showed FB (38/108; 35.2%) is the most common form of FRS followed by AIFRS (33/108; 30.6%), AFS (32/108; 29.6%), and CIFRS (5/108; 4.6%). A. flavus and Rhizopus oryzae were the most common causes of infection in AFS, FB, CIFRS, and AIFRS, respectively. Univariate analysis of variables predictive of AIFRS revealed 3 variables significantly associated with AIFRS. These included mucosal abnormalities of the middle turbinate and septum, and specifically, necrosis of the middle turbinate (P < .0001). Microbiological cultures, although useful for mycological speciation, are less sensitive. Furthermore, we used molecular methods to confirm the identity of some isolates that were not detectable using routine methods. Our data showed that the molecular methods and histologic diagnosis in all patients were more sensitive than the unenhanced sinus CT scan, and conventional microbiological methods. © 2021 Elsevier Ltd