Development of a novel self-assessment tool following endoscopic sinus surgery in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis.

OBJECTIVE: To propose a novel quality metric tool for retrospectively examining ESS performed on chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients, ultimately to facilitate clinician self-assessment and optimize care provision within this population. DESIGN: Quality improvement study. SETTING: Multi-center. PARTICIPANTS: Observational, prospective research database of adult patients with medically recalcitrant CRS, presenting to seven North-American academic rhinology centers, who underwent ESS between 2011 and 2021. Participant characteristics, comorbidities, and preoperative study measures were collected. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A simple ratio of preoperative Lund-Mackay (LM) score to the number of sinus regions operated on during the course of ESS was determined for each participant and dichotomized into ratios of >1.0 or <1.0. RESULTS: 828 study participants with medically recalcitrant CRS met final study inclusion, of which 47.8 % were male with an average age of 49.0 years. Approximately 50.9 % of participants had a history of previous ESS. Overall mean ratio between preoperative LM scores and numbers of surgically addressed sinuses for all patients with CRS (n = 828) was 1.61 (range: 0.00-6.00), with a minority of subjects (n = 108; 13.0 %) found to have ratios below 1.00. Mean ratios between patients who underwent primary ESS versus revision ESS were not statistically different (2.00 [±0.83] vs 1.98 [±0.88]; 0.02 %, 95 % CI -0.10, 0.14; P = 0.76), whereas differences in mean ratios between CRSsNP patients (without nasal polyposis) and CRSwNP patients (with nasal polyposis) were statistically significant (1.78 [±0.93] vs 2.26 [±0.67]; 0.48 %, 95 % CI 0.37, 0.59; P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This quality metric ratio represents a simple operational means for clinicians to integrate qualitative methodology into self-reflection when evaluating the extent of ESS performed on CRS patients. Its use as a clinical tool for retrospective self-reflection enables the surgeon to identify areas for improvement, assess situational specifics, and hone their craft.

Impacts of Socioeconomic Status on Dentoalveolar Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Children sustain dentoalveolar trauma and lose teeth at the same rate regardless of socioeconomic status; however, debate surrounds these rates in adults. It is known socioeconomic status plays a major role in access and treatment in health care. This study aims to clarify the role of socioeconomic status as a risk factor for dentoalveolar trauma in adults. METHODS: A single center retrospective chart review took place from January 2011 through December 2020 for patients requiring oral maxillofacial surgery consultation in the emergency department, due to either dentoalveolar trauma (Group 1) or other dental condition (Group 2). Demographic information including age, sex, race, marital status, employment status, and type of insurance were collected. Odds ratios were calculated by chi-square analysis with significance set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Over the course of 10 years, 247 patients (53% female) required an oral maxillofacial surgery consultation, with 65 (26%) sustaining dentoalveolar trauma. Within this group, there were significantly more subjects who were Black, single, insured with Medicaid, unemployed, and 18 - 39 years old. In the nontraumatic control group, there were significantly more subjects who were White, married, insured with Medicare, and 40 - 59 years old. CONCLUSIONS: Among those seen in the emergency department requiring an oral maxillofacial surgery consultation, those with dentoalveolar trauma have an increased likelihood of being single, Black, insured with Medicaid, unemployed, and 18 - 39 years old. Further research is needed to determine causality and the most critical/influential socioeconomic status factor in sustaining dentoalveolar trauma. Identifying these factors can assist in developing future community-based prevention and educational programs.

Medial orbital wall decompression: Demographics influencing surgical follow-up and complications: Impacts on follow-up and complications.

OBJECTIVE: Identify the impact of demographics and social determinants of health on surgical follow-up and complications after medial orbital wall decompression (MOWD) secondary to thyroid associated orbitopathy (TAO). METHODS: Demographics and social determinants of health (age, sex, race, insurance status) for 46 patients undergoing MOWD secondary to TAO were correlated with post-operative compliance and surgical complications by chi-square analyses. RESULTS: Among 46 patients, 23 were compliant with follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference between compliance and non-compliance based on age (60.25 vs 56.4, p = .41), sex (71.9 % female vs 85.7 % female, p = .31), race (65.6 % white vs 71.4 % white, p = .70) or insurance status (59.4 % private vs 42.9 % private, p = .30). Complications were noted in 50 % of patients of which sinus infection was most common (47.8 % of complications) and epistaxis rare (4.3 % of complications). No correlation was noted between development of complications and compliance (p = .20). Likewise, age, race and insurance status did not correlate with complications. CONCLUSION: For patients undergoing MOWD, no correlations with compliance or complication rate were noted with age, sex, race, or insurance status. A larger cohort may be indicated to identify such patterns. The overall complication rate was 50 % and the increased number of visits may have economic impact. KEY POINTS: This study provides a unique chance to assess demographic correlates of compliance and complication while controlling for surgeon preference. There was no association between sociodemographics and compliance or complications.

Pott's puffy tumor: A comprehensive review of the literature.

PURPOSE: Pott's puffy tumor (PPT) is a rare clinical entity characterized by osteomyelitis of the frontal bone with subperiosteal abscess collection. The frequency of reported cases of PPT in the literature has increased in recent years. Previous reviews of PPT exist primarily in the form of small, retrospective case series and anecdotal case reports. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide the literature's largest comprehensive, up-to-date review of the essential clinical findings, diagnostic modalities, microbiologic considerations, and treatment approaches utilized in the management of PPT, both in pediatric and adult populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase databases for English-language studies published from January 1950 through January 30, 2022. The authors reviewed all cases of PPT, focusing specifically on those describing therapeutic management of PPT. A total of 321 patients were included, consisting of 318 patients (from 216 articles) and an additional 3 adult cases from our institution. RESULTS: PPT most often results from untreated rhinosinusitis, as well as direct head trauma, substance use, and odontogenic disease. Infections are classically polymicrobial with an anaerobe-predominant microbiome. Both CT and MRI imaging modalities are commonly obtained for presurgical assessment of sinusitis and intracranial extension. The core of treatment is an early and aggressive approach to prevent long-term complications. A significant association exists between surgical management and clinical outcomes for patients with PPT. Recent literature suggests endoscopic sinus surgery is essential for successful disease resolution. CONCLUSIONS: PPT is an important and relatively morbid disease process that is often underrecognized and misdiagnosed at presentation due to its variable clinical presentation. Management of PPT includes both antimicrobial therapy and surgical intervention. Determination of the optimal approach depends on patient clinical features including age, history of prior endoscopic sinus surgery, and presence of intracranial involvement on presentation. An individualized, targeted, and interdisciplinary approach to the treatment of PPT is critical for successful disease resolution.

Indications for absorbable steroid-eluting sinus implants: Viewpoint via the Delphi method.

Absorbable steroid-eluting sinus implants provide targeted corticosteroid release over a sustained period and are designed to prevent both undesirable adhesion formation and sinus ostia restenosis. Here, we highlight the key evidence of these implants to date and query a group of experts via a Delphi process on the indications and optimal timing for intraoperative or in-office placement of these implants. Six of a total of 12 statements reached consensus and were accepted. Overall, experts largely agree that intraoperative or in-office use of steroid-eluting stents could be considered for patients: (1) who are diabetic or intolerant of oral steroids, (2) undergoing extended frontal sinus surgery, and (3) with recurrent stenosis. Given the lack of expert consensus on other key statements, clinicians should carefully consider these treatment options on a case-by-case basis after shared decision-making.

Duration of effectiveness of coblation for recurrent epistaxis in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.

INTRODUCTION: Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) is an autosomal dominant disease leading to recurrent epistaxis, telangiectasias, and/or visceral arteriovenous malformations. Multiple treatment methods, including both pharmacologic and surgical, are described to be effective in managing symptomatic HHT. Few report the duration of symptom improvement for each of these treatment methods. This study aims to analyze the duration of effectiveness of coblation treatment for recurrent epistaxis in those with HHT. METHODS: Retrospective single-center chart review was completed for patients diagnosed with HHT who underwent coblation treatment by the same otolaryngologist from December 2009 to November 2021. Demographic information was collected along with whether local Bevacizumab was used during each treatment. Months between treatment coblation sessions was used as a surrogate for duration of treatment effectiveness. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis alongside quantitative statistical analysis. RESULTS: Over the course of 12 years, 57 patients (24 female, 42.11%) with HHT underwent a total number of 150 coblation treatments. The average age at initial coblation was 59 years (29-88) with an average follow-up time of 5 years (1-12 years). Of the 150 coblations, 30 treatments (20%) included bevacizumab injections into the nasal cavity. The average duration of treatment effectiveness across all 150 treatment sessions was 24.5 months (1-87 months). Of the 26 patients (46%) that underwent multiple coblation treatments, the overall average duration of coblation effectiveness was 16.4 months (1-72 mos). When Bevacizumab was utilized, the average duration of effectiveness was 18.3 months (3-62 mos), while the average duration of effectiveness for treatments without Bevacizumab was 15.7 months (1-87 mos, p > 0.251). Further, there was no correlation between duration of treatment effectiveness and age, sex, and race; yet,there was a significant negative correlation between the use of tobacco and duration of coblation effectiveness (p = 0.0202). CONCLUSIONS: Coblation is an effective treatment option for the management of epistaxis in patients with HHT with duration of benefit lasting approximately 2 years. The use of Bevacizumab did not add to the duration of treatment benefit. Further, the duration of benefit was negatively impacted by smoking history.

Oral corticosteroid use and the risk of developing avascular necrosis: A large retrospective review.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of adverse events, specifically avascular necrosis (AVN), associated with corticosteroid use is not well reported. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of AVN among patients with prior oral corticosteroid administration. METHODS: An institutional database query recognized 113,734 adult patients with oral corticosteroid administration between January 2006 and May 2017. A temporal query performed on this cohort determined that 789 had a diagnosis of AVN following oral corticosteroids. A retrospective review was performed on this cohort. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, date of initial oral corticosteroid exposure, and time to diagnosis of AVN. Records without radiographic confirmation of AVN were excluded from analysis. Patients with cumulative lifetime dosages greater than 10,000 mg prednisone were excluded from analysis. RESULTS: A total of 789 patients with oral corticosteroid use prior to diagnosis of AVN were identified. Five hundred and seventy-two patients were excluded due to insufficient documentation of oral corticosteroid dosage, no radiographic evidence supporting the diagnosis of AVN, insufficient data confirming the temporal relationship between oral corticosteroids and AVN, and/or a cumulative dosing of >10,000 mg prednisone. This left 217 patients included in the analysis. The mean duration of use prior to diagnosis of AVN was 219 (± 374) days, and mean cumulative dose was 3314 (± 2908) mg prednisone equivalents. Mean time between diagnosis of AVN and onset of pathologic fracture was 379 (± 1046) days. CONCLUSION: For patients receiving low cumulative doses of oral corticosteroids, corticosteroids pose a small risk of development of AVN. More studies are required to better characterize risk.

Corticosteroid Use in Otolaryngology: Current Considerations During the COVID-19 Era.

OBJECTIVE: To offer pragmatic, evidence-informed advice on administering corticosteroids in otolaryngology during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, considering therapeutic efficacy, potential adverse effects, susceptibility to COVID-19, and potential effects on efficacy of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, and guideline databases. REVIEW METHODS: Guideline search strategies, supplemented by database searches on sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL), idiopathic facial nerve paralysis (Bell's palsy), sinonasal polyposis, laryngotracheal disorders, head and neck oncology, and pediatric otolaryngology, prioritizing systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and COVID-19-specific findings. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids (SCSs) reduce long-term morbidity in individuals with SSNHL and Bell's palsy, reduce acute laryngotracheal edema, and have benefit in perioperative management for some procedures. Topical or locally injected corticosteroids are preferable for most other otolaryngologic indications. SCSs have not shown long-term benefit for sinonasal disorders. SCSs are not a contraindication to vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that these vaccines are safe for immunocompromised patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: SCS use for SSNHL, Bell's palsy, laryngotracheal edema, and perioperative care should follow prepandemic standards. Local or topical corticosteroids are preferable for most other otolaryngologic indications. Whether SCSs attenuate response to vaccination against COVID-19 or increase susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection is unknown. Immunosuppression may lower vaccine efficacy, so immunocompromised patients should adhere to recommended infection control practices. COVID-19 vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson vaccines is safe for immunocompromised patients.

COVID-19 Testing in the Era of Modern Neurosurgery: Mitigating Risk in Our Vulnerable Patient Populations.

BACKGROUND: The respiratory illness identified as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in a pandemic illness that has changed the face of healthcare. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, patients have continued to require neurosurgical interventions, and the endoscopic endonasal approach for surgery has continued to be a mainstay treatment of pituitary tumors and anterior skull base lesions. METHODS: We sought to highlight the current lack of recommendations regarding testing protocols for neurosurgical patients. RESULTS: We implemented a novel testing protocol for our patient populations at increased risk and have proposed a model that can be used at other institutions to mitigate the risk of complications associated with some forms of COVID-19 testing. CONCLUSION: Patients with anterior skull base defects may be at risk with current COVID-19 testing protocols, and may benefit from alternative specimen collection strategies.

Socioeconomic Determinants of Tertiary Rhinology Care Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the impact of patient demographics and socioeconomic factors on the utilization of tertiary rhinology care services in an upper Midwestern academic medical center. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of electronic health records. SETTING: Academic medical center. METHODS: The electronic health record of our academic center was interrogated for the demographics and diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) among adult patients seen by fellowship-trained rhinologists from 2000 to 2019. Patient characteristics (age, sex, race, insurance status) and population-level data (median income and education level) were compared with utilization of tertiary rhinology services for CRS. Utilization rates were calculated for each regional zip code and correlated with census data for median income and education. The association between determinants of health and tertiary rhinology utilization was assessed by multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 8325 patients diagnosed with CRS used tertiary rhinology services. Patients were older (median, 58.9 years) and more likely to be female (57.6%), White (85%), and privately insured (60%) when compared with patients seen across our hospital system (P < .001). Adjusted analyses showed median income, education level, and White race to be independently correlated with tertiary care utilization. Private insurance alone was not an independent contributing factor to access. CONCLUSION: Utilization of tertiary rhinology services correlated with income, race, and education level. Private insurance was not an independent factor. These results highlight social differences in determinants of access to tertiary otolaryngologic care.

Diagnosing odontogenic sinusitis: An international multidisciplinary consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) is distinct from non-odontogenic rhinosinusitis, and often requires multidisciplinary collaboration between otolaryngologists and dental providers to make the diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to develop international multidisciplinary consensus on diagnosing ODS. METHODS: A modified Delphi method was used to assess for expert consensus on diagnosing bacterial ODS. A multidisciplinary panel of 17 authors with ODS expertise from 8 countries (8 otolaryngologists, 9 dental specialists) was assembled. Each author completed 2 of 3 surveys (2 specialty-specific, and 1 for all authors). Thirty-seven clinical statements were created, focusing on 4 important diagnostic components: suspecting ODS; confirming sinusitis in ODS; confirming different dental pathologies causing ODS; and multidisciplinary collaborative aspects of diagnosing ODS. Target audiences were all otolaryngologists and dental providers. RESULTS: Of the 37 clinical statements, 36 reached consensus or strong consensus, and 1 reached no consensus. Strong consensus was reached that certain clinical and microbiologic features should arouse suspicion for ODS, and that multidisciplinary collaboration between otolaryngologists and dental providers is generally required to diagnose ODS. To diagnose ODS, otolaryngologists should confirm sinusitis mainly based on nasal endoscopic findings of middle meatal purulence, edema, or polyps, and dental providers should confirm dental pathology based on clinical examination and dental imaging. CONCLUSION: Based on multidisciplinary international consensus, diagnosing ODS generally requires otolaryngologists to confirm sinusitis, and dental providers to confirm maxillary odontogenic pathology. Importantly, both dental providers and otolaryngologists should suspect ODS based on certain clinical features, and refer patients to appropriate providers for disease confirmation.

Diagnosing odontogenic sinusitis of endodontic origin: A multidisciplinary literature review.

PURPOSE: Endodontic disease is one of the most common causes of bacterial odontogenic sinusitis (ODS). Diagnosing ODS of endodontic origin involves otolaryngologists confirming sinusitis, and dental specialists confirming endodontic sources. The purpose of this study was to conduct a multidisciplinary literature review to highlight clinical and microbiological features of ODS, and the most optimal diagnostic modalities to confirm endodontic disease. METHODS: An extensive review of both medical and dental literature was performed by rhinologists, endodontists, and an infectious disease specialist. Frequencies of various clinical and microbiological features from ODS studies were collected, and averages were calculated. Different endodontic testing and imaging modalities were also evaluated on their abilities to confirm endodontic disease. RESULTS: ODS patients most often present with unilateral sinonasal symptoms for over 3 months, purulence on nasal endoscopy, and overt dental pathology on computed tomography (CT). Subjective foul smell, and maxillary sinus cultures demonstrating anaerobes and α-streptococci (viridans group) may be more specific to ODS. For endodontic evaluations, cold pulp testing and cone-beam CT imaging are most optimal for confirming pulpal and periapical disease. CONCLUSION: Diagnosing ODS requires collaboration between otolaryngologists and dental specialists. Clinicians should suspect ODS when patients present with unilateral sinonasal symptoms, especially foul smell. Patients will generally have purulent drainage on nasal endoscopy, and both sinus opacification and overt dental pathology on CT. However, some patients will have subtle or absent dental pathology on CT. For suspected endodontic disease, endodontists should be consulted for at least cold pulp testing, and ideally cone-beam CT.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: rhinosinusitis 2021.

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: BACKGROUND: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR-RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR-RS-2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence-based findings of the document. METHODS: ICAR-RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence-based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence-based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. RESULTS: ICAR-RS-2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence-based management algorithm is provided. CONCLUSION: This ICAR-RS-2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence-based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS.

Drug-eluting implants in chronic rhinosinusitis: an evidence-based review with recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting implants are becoming increasingly popular in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). A previous attempt to make an evidence-based recommendation was hindered by limited evidence and experience with these implants. Since that time, the body of literature discussing drug-eluting implants has grown rapidly. The objective of this study was to review drug-eluting implants designed for use in the sinonasal cavity through an evidence-based review with recommendations. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Review, and gray literature databases from January 1990 through February 2019 to examine drug-eluting implants used in CRS. Benefit-harm assessments, value judgments, and recommendations were made based on the available evidence. Study exclusion criteria included studies unavailable in English and non-endoscopic sinus surgeries. All authors agreed on recommendations through an iterative process. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were included in the final analysis. Absorbable drug-eluting implants achieved a high aggregate grade of evidence (A), with a recommendation for their use to be considered in carefully selected patients. Nonabsorbable drug-eluting implants were recommended against due to minimal evidence supporting clinical efficacy. Antibiotic and alternative drug-eluting implants lack sufficient evidence for recommendations. CONCLUSION: Absorbable steroid-eluting implants are recommended for carefully selected patients with CRS. Additional research to define appropriate patient selection is needed.

Management of odontogenic sinusitis: multidisciplinary consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) can present a therapeutic dilemma because multiple treatment strategies have been reported. ODS review articles have been published, but they have lacked multidisciplinary collaboration and an evidence-based methodology. The purpose of this article was to perform an evidence-based review of ODS management options, and develop a multidisciplinary consensus statement on ODS management options. METHODS: An evidence-based review of dental and medical literature on ODS management was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Review Databases up to December 2019. Exclusion criteria included non-English-language articles, case series with fewer than 10 patients, fungal sinusitis, and studies that did not report treatment success rates. Because aggregate levels of evidence for recommendations were no higher than level C, a clinical consensus statement was conducted using a modified Delphi method. RESULTS: Sixteen articles met inclusion criteria for the evidence-based review on the following ODS management options: dental treatment alone or combined with ESS for various dental pathologies, and endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) alone for dental implant-related ODS. Strong consensus was achieved for 9 of the 10 clinical statements, the strongest being the use of shared decision-making for selecting management strategies. No consensus was reached for determining the extent of ESS necessary for uncomplicated ODS. CONCLUSION: Strong consensus was reached that ODS management should involve shared decision-making between the otolaryngologist, dental provider, and patient, where the benefits and risks of dental treatment and ESS are discussed. Higher-quality studies are necessary to develop evidence-based treatment recommendations for ODS.

Surgical Field Visualization during Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: Comparison of Propofol- vs Desflurane-Based Anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if the type of general anesthetic affects bleeding and field visualization during endoscopic sinus surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Academic teaching hospital and Veterans Affairs hospital in the United States. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Seventy patients were randomized to 1 of 3 anesthetic regimens: (1) the volatile anesthetic desflurane (n = 22), (2) intravenous anesthesia with propofol (n = 25), or (3) a combination of propofol and desflurane (n = 23). Intravenous remifentanil was titrated to decrease the mean arterial pressure to 60 to 70 mm Hg but not ≥30% from baseline. Surgical bleeding scores were recorded along with bleeding rates and hemodynamic parameters, including cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance through pulse contour analysis from a radial arterial line. Statistics: multiple comparison tests and regression analyses; α = .05. RESULTS: There were no differences in bleeding rate (median, 0.58, 0.85, 0.57 mL min-1), bleeding score (2.1, 2.0, 2.0), surgery duration (79, 81, 86 minutes), extubation time (9, 7, 8 minutes), recovery room time (65, 61, 61 minutes), or any hemodynamic parameters among groups 1 through 3, respectively. Group 1 required lower remifentanil infusions than group 2 (0.11 vs 0.26 µg kg-1 min-1; P = .01). The bleeding score correlated positively with height (P = .014) and the Lund-MacKay score (P = .013). Bilateral vs unilateral surgery led to longer surgery duration (P = .001) and recovery room time (P = .004). CONCLUSION: When remifentanil is used for controlled hypotension, propofol has no advantage over desflurane to improve surgical field visualization during functional endoscopic sinus surgery.

Odontogenic Sinusitis: Current Concepts in Diagnosis and Treatment.

Odontogenic sinusitis is a unique cause of sinus disease that deserves special consideration. An astute clinician can elicit historical findings such as recent dental work, and symptoms such as unilateral facial pain and foul drainage, despite a relatively benign oral cavity examination. Otolaryngologists and dental professionals who care for these patients must be able to interpret imaging studies for dental disorder such as periapical abscesses and periodontal disease. Treatment is frequently some combination of antibiotic therapy, dental procedures, and endoscopic sinus surgery. More prospective studies are needed to determine the best approach to caring for this patient population.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Nosebleed (Epistaxis).

OBJECTIVE: Nosebleed, also known as epistaxis, is a common problem that occurs at some point in at least 60% of people in the United States. While the majority of nosebleeds are limited in severity and duration, about 6% of people who experience nosebleeds will seek medical attention. For the purposes of this guideline, we define the target patient with a nosebleed as a patient with bleeding from the nostril, nasal cavity, or nasopharynx that is sufficient to warrant medical advice or care. This includes bleeding that is severe, persistent, and/or recurrent, as well as bleeding that impacts a patient's quality of life. Interventions for nosebleeds range from self-treatment and home remedies to more intensive procedural interventions in medical offices, emergency departments, hospitals, and operating rooms. Epistaxis has been estimated to account for 0.5% of all emergency department visits and up to one-third of all otolaryngology-related emergency department encounters. Inpatient hospitalization for aggressive treatment of severe nosebleeds has been reported in 0.2% of patients with nosebleeds. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in the management of nosebleeds and to create clear and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specific goals of this guideline are to promote best practices, reduce unjustified variations in care of patients with nosebleeds, improve health outcomes, and minimize the potential harms of nosebleeds or interventions to treat nosebleeds. The target patient for the guideline is any individual aged ≥3 years with a nosebleed or history of nosebleed who needs medical treatment or seeks medical advice. The target audience of this guideline is clinicians who evaluate and treat patients with nosebleed. This includes primary care providers such as family medicine physicians, internists, pediatricians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. It also includes specialists such as emergency medicine providers, otolaryngologists, interventional radiologists/neuroradiologists and neurointerventionalists, hematologists, and cardiologists. The setting for this guideline includes any site of evaluation and treatment for a patient with nosebleed, including ambulatory medical sites, the emergency department, the inpatient hospital, and even remote outpatient encounters with phone calls and telemedicine. Outcomes to be considered for patients with nosebleed include control of acute bleeding, prevention of recurrent episodes of nasal bleeding, complications of treatment modalities, and accuracy of diagnostic measures. This guideline addresses the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nosebleed. It focuses on nosebleeds that commonly present to clinicians via phone calls, office visits, and emergency room encounters. This guideline discusses first-line treatments such as nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery. It also addresses more complex epistaxis management, which includes the use of endoscopic arterial ligation and interventional radiology procedures. Management options for 2 special groups of patients-patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome and patients taking medications that inhibit coagulation and/or platelet function-are included in this guideline. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide for managing patients with nosebleed. In this context, the purpose is to define useful actions for clinicians, generalists, and specialists from a variety of disciplines to improve quality of care. Conversely, the statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made recommendations for the following key action statements: (1) At the time of initial contact, the clinician should distinguish the nosebleed patient who requires prompt management from the patient who does not. (2) The clinician should treat active bleeding for patients in need of prompt management with firm sustained compression to the lower third of the nose, with or without the assistance of the patient or caregiver, for 5 minutes or longer. (3a) For patients in whom bleeding precludes identification of a bleeding site despite nasal compression, the clinician should treat ongoing active bleeding with nasal packing. (3b) The clinician should use resorbable packing for patients with a suspected bleeding disorder or for patients who are using anticoagulation or antiplatelet medications. (4) The clinician should educate the patient who undergoes nasal packing about the type of packing placed, timing of and plan for removal of packing (if not resorbable), postprocedure care, and any signs or symptoms that would warrant prompt reassessment. (5) The clinician should document factors that increase the frequency or severity of bleeding for any patient with a nosebleed, including personal or family history of bleeding disorders, use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications, or intranasal drug use. (6) The clinician should perform anterior rhinoscopy to identify a source of bleeding after removal of any blood clot (if present) for patients with nosebleeds. (7a) The clinician should perform, or should refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to identify the site of bleeding and guide further management in patients with recurrent nasal bleeding, despite prior treatment with packing or cautery, or with recurrent unilateral nasal bleeding. (8) The clinician should treat patients with an identified site of bleeding with an appropriate intervention, which may include one or more of the following: topical vasoconstrictors, nasal cautery, and moisturizing or lubricating agents. (9) When nasal cautery is chosen for treatment, the clinician should anesthetize the bleeding site and restrict application of cautery only to the active or suspected site(s) of bleeding. (10) The clinician should evaluate, or refer to a clinician who can evaluate, candidacy for surgical arterial ligation or endovascular embolization for patients with persistent or recurrent bleeding not controlled by packing or nasal cauterization. (11) In the absence of life-threatening bleeding, the clinician should initiate first-line treatments prior to transfusion, reversal of anticoagulation, or withdrawal of anticoagulation/antiplatelet medications for patients using these medications. (12) The clinician should assess, or refer to a specialist who can assess, the presence of nasal telangiectasias and/or oral mucosal telangiectasias in patients who have a history of recurrent bilateral nosebleeds or a family history of recurrent nosebleeds to diagnose hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome. (13) The clinician should educate patients with nosebleeds and their caregivers about preventive measures for nosebleeds, home treatment for nosebleeds, and indications to seek additional medical care. (14) The clinician or designee should document the outcome of intervention within 30 days or document transition of care in patients who had a nosebleed treated with nonresorbable packing, surgery, or arterial ligation/embolization. The policy level for the following recommendation, about examination of the nasal cavity and nasopharynx using nasal endoscopy, was an option: (7b) The clinician may perform, or may refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to examine the nasal cavity and nasopharynx in patients with epistaxis that is difficult to control or when there is concern for unrecognized pathology contributing to epistaxis.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Nosebleed (Epistaxis) Executive Summary.

OBJECTIVE: Nosebleed, also known as epistaxis, is a common problem that occurs at some point in at least 60% of people in the United States. While the great majority of nosebleeds are limited in severity and duration, about 6% of people who experience nosebleeds will seek medical attention. For the purposes of this guideline, we define the target patient with a nosebleed as a patient with bleeding from the nostril, nasal cavity, or nasopharynx that is sufficient to warrant medical advice or care. This includes bleeding that is severe, persistent, and/or recurrent, as well as bleeding that impacts a patient's quality of life. Interventions for nosebleeds range from self-treatment and home remedies to more intensive procedural interventions in medical offices, emergency departments, hospitals, and operating rooms. Epistaxis has been estimated to account for 0.5% of all emergency department visits and up to one-third of all otolaryngology-related emergency department encounters. Inpatient hospitalization for aggressive treatment of severe nosebleeds has been reported in 0.2% of patients with nosebleeds. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in the management of nosebleeds and to create clear and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specific goals of this guideline are to promote best practices, reduce unjustified variations in care of patients with nosebleeds, improve health outcomes, and minimize the potential harms of nosebleeds or interventions to treat nosebleeds. The target patient for the guideline is any individual aged ≥3 years with a nosebleed or history of nosebleed who needs medical treatment or seeks medical advice. The target audience of this guideline is clinicians who evaluate and treat patients with nosebleed. This includes primary care providers such as family medicine physicians, internists, pediatricians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. It also includes specialists such as emergency medicine providers, otolaryngologists, interventional radiologists/neuroradiologists and neurointerventionalists, hematologists, and cardiologists. The setting for this guideline includes any site of evaluation and treatment for a patient with nosebleed, including ambulatory medical sites, the emergency department, the inpatient hospital, and even remote outpatient encounters with phone calls and telemedicine. Outcomes to be considered for patients with nosebleed include control of acute bleeding, prevention of recurrent episodes of nasal bleeding, complications of treatment modalities, and accuracy of diagnostic measures. This guideline addresses the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nosebleed. It will focus on nosebleeds that commonly present to clinicians with phone calls, office visits, and emergency room encounters. This guideline discusses first-line treatments such as nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery. It also addresses more complex epistaxis management, which includes the use of endoscopic arterial ligation and interventional radiology procedures. Management options for 2 special groups of patients, patients with hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome (HHT) and patients taking medications that inhibit coagulation and/or platelet function, are included in this guideline. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the working group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide for managing patients with nosebleed. In this context, the purpose is to define useful actions for clinicians, generalists, and specialists from a variety of disciplines to improve quality of care. Conversely, the statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based upon their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made recommendations for the following key action statements: (1) At the time of initial contact, the clinician should distinguish the nosebleed patient who requires prompt management from the patient who does not. (2) The clinician should treat active bleeding for patients in need of prompt management with firm sustained compression to the lower third of the nose, with or without the assistance of the patient or caregiver, for 5 minutes or longer. (3a) For patients in whom bleeding precludes identification of a bleeding site despite nasal compression, the clinician should treat ongoing active bleeding with nasal packing. (3b) The clinician should use resorbable packing for patients with a suspected bleeding disorder or for patients who are using anticoagulation or antiplatelet medications. (4) The clinician should educate the patient who undergoes nasal packing about the type of packing placed, timing of and plan for removal of packing (if not resorbable), postprocedure care, and any signs or symptoms that would warrant prompt reassessment. (5) The clinician should document factors that increase the frequency or severity of bleeding for any patient with a nosebleed, including personal or family history of bleeding disorders, use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications, or intranasal drug use. (6) The clinician should perform anterior rhinoscopy to identify a source of bleeding after removal of any blood clot (if present) for patients with nosebleeds. (7a) The clinician should perform, or should refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to identify the site of bleeding and guide further management in patients with recurrent nasal bleeding, despite prior treatment with packing or cautery, or with recurrent unilateral nasal bleeding. (8) The clinician should treat patients with an identified site of bleeding with an appropriate intervention, which may include 1 or more of the following: topical vasoconstrictors, nasal cautery, and moisturizing or lubricating agents. (9) When nasal cautery is chosen for treatment, the clinician should anesthetize the bleeding site and restrict application of cautery only to the active or suspected site(s) of bleeding. (10) The clinician should evaluate, or refer to a clinician who can evaluate, candidacy for surgical arterial ligation or endovascular embolization for patients with persistent or recurrent bleeding not controlled by packing or nasal cauterization. (11) In the absence of life-threatening bleeding, the clinician should initiate first-line treatments prior to transfusion, reversal of anticoagulation, or withdrawal of anticoagulation/antiplatelet medications for patients using these medications. (12) The clinician should assess, or refer to a specialist who can assess, the presence of nasal telangiectasias and/or oral mucosal telangiectasias in patients who have a history of recurrent bilateral nosebleeds or a family history of recurrent nosebleeds to diagnose hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome (HHT). (13) The clinician should educate patients with nosebleeds and their caregivers about preventive measures for nosebleeds, home treatment for nosebleeds, and indications to seek additional medical care. (14) The clinician or designee should document the outcome of intervention within 30 days or document transition of care in patients who had a nosebleed treated with nonresorbable packing, surgery, or arterial ligation/embolization. The policy level for the following recommendation about examination of the nasal cavity and nasopharynx using nasal endoscopy was an option: (7b) The clinician may perform, or may refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to examine the nasal cavity and nasopharynx in patients with epistaxis that is difficult to control or when there is concern for unrecognized pathology contributing to epistaxis.