Epistaxis: A guide to assessment and management.

Is your patient's nosebleed a self-limiting occurrence, or a sign of something more worrisome? And which treatments are best in which situations?

Epidemiology and Management of Pediatric Epistaxis.

Objectives The purpose of this study is to describe the demographics of children undergoing inpatient management of epistaxis and recognize the clinical circumstances that may necessitate embolization or ligation for epistaxis management. Study Design and Setting Cross-sectional analysis of a national database. Subjects and Methods A review of data reported by hospitals in the United States to the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Kids' Inpatient Database with a diagnosis of epistaxis was conducted ( International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ ICD-9] code 784.7). The database provides new data every 3 years. The most recent databases, 2006, 2009, and 2012, were reviewed. Results A total of 11,366 patients with a diagnosis of epistaxis were identified. The average age was 12 years, and most patients were male (60%). Of the patients who underwent intervention for epistaxis, 704 underwent packing, 119 underwent ligation, and 98 underwent embolization. Transfusion of blood or platelets was highest in the patients undergoing packing only (38%, P < .0001). The lowest average length of stay was for the ligation group with a mean (SD) of 6.95 (14.02) days. Embolization and ligation most frequently occurred in the setting of an urban teaching hospital (95.63% and 73.28%, respectively). For patients who underwent embolization with epistaxis as a secondary diagnosis, benign neoplasm of nasopharynx (58.3%) was the most common primary diagnosis. In those patients who underwent ligation, nasal bone fracture (28.5%) was the most common primary diagnosis. Conclusion This study highlights that 11,366 patients were treated for epistaxis during 2006, 2009, and 2012, and most patients were treated conservatively.

Management of Persistent Epistaxis Using Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs. traditional nasal packing: a prospective randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Epistaxis is the most common emergent consultation to otolaryngology-head & neck surgery (OHNS) and with 60% of the population having experienced an episode and 1.6 in 10,000 requiring hospitalization in their lifetime. In preliminary studies Floseal® (Baxter, USA) Hemostatic Matrix has shown efficacy in up to 80% of persistent anterior epistaxis. We sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Floseal® (Baxter, USA) compared to traditional nasal packing for persistent epistaxis. METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted on all adult patients consulted to the OHNS service at the tertiary referral centers of the University of Alberta Hospital and Royal Alexandra Hospital for persistent epistaxis. Patients were randomized to the Floseal® (Baxter, USA) or traditional packing study arms. Our main clinical outcome measures were: 1) Hemostasis directly following treatment and at 48 h post-treatment, and 2) self-reported patient comfort at 48 h post-treatment. Further, trial data was used for a formal cost-effectiveness analysis to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate sensitivity analysis and uncertainty analysis were performed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups for initial hemostasis (76.9% vs. 84.6%, p = 1.000) or, hemostasis at 48 h (76.9% vs. 69.2%, p = 1.000), requirement for admission (15.4% vs. 46.1%, p = 0.2016) or 30-day re-presentation rates (15.4% vs. 46.1%, p = 0.2016). Floseal® (Baxter, USA) was superior for decreased pain during placement (2.42 vs. 7.77, p = 0.0022), treatment (0.50 vs. 4.46, p = 0.0007) and removal (0 vs. 3.85, p = 0.0021). Floseal® (Baxter, USA) provides an average $1567.61 per patient savings from the single-payer system point of view and has an ICER of - $11,891 per re-bleed prevented (95% CI: -$37,658 to +$473). Uncertainty analysis shows that Floseal® has >90% chance of not only being cost-effective, but the dominant (preferred) treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Floseal® (Baxter, USA) was demonstrated to be an effective, comfortable and cost-effective alternative treatment of persistent epistaxis when compared to traditional packing methods for patients referred to OHNS with a normal coagulation profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: NCT02488135 . Date registered: June 26, 2015.

A prospective pilot study comparing nasal blood sampling and venipuncture for the assessment of hemoglobin levels and INR.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: This study is a pilot study evaluating the feasibility of sampling nose blood during an emergency using a commercially available rapid test device. It also compares the accuracy of rapid nasal blood test results to the results of standard laboratory methods using venous blood sampling. METHODS: Nose blood was collected in patients suffering from active epistaxis. In an emergency setting, hemoglobin levels and the international normalized ratio (INR) were assessed using a rapid point-of-care test device. These results were compared to standard laboratory analyses from venous blood taken at the same time from the same patient. Twenty patients consented to and participated in these assessments. RESULTS: Linear regression comparing venous and nasal samples revealed strong correlations between the two methods for both hemoglobin and INR measurement. A Bland-Altman analysis showed the mean difference to be 2.3 g/L when comparing hemoglobin measurements made using the rapid point-of-care device to hemoglobin measurements made using conventional lab assessment. The corresponding mean difference for INR measurements was 0.14. CONCLUSION: The results of this pilot study support the use of point-of-care test devices using nasal blood sampling and provide preliminary data demonstrating that a rapid testing method can be reliable, practicable, and time-efficient. In our opinion, rapid hematologic screening for nasal and capillary blood should be available in emergency wards that treat epistaxis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 127:577-581, 2017.

Valoración de la Epistaxis

Se presenta el estudio prospectivo de valoración de epistaxis en el Hospital Regional Honorio Delgado Espinoza de Arequipa, en el periodo anual setiembre 1994-agosto 1995. dando a conocer los conceptos y el cuadro evolutivo de la historia natural de la enfermedad. Determinando factores epidemiológicos de riesgo que favorecen su aparición, la forma de diagnóstico, precisando la clasificación general de epistaxis de todas sus variables, el tratamiento efectivizado, su evolución y complicaciones; en los 834 casos del estudio. Estableciendo tasas de morbilidad y mortalidad a nivel hospitalario, encontrándose tasa medianamente altas en comparación a otros trabajos realizados. Concluyendo por todo lo efectuado que la epistaxis es una manifestación singular que por si sola explica su presentación o es solo parte de un complejo proceso de enfermedad y que reviste gravedad en enfermedades sitemáticas, siendo difícil su tratamiento; en la generalidad de los casos con buen pronóstico y en pacientes con epistaxis graves de mal pronóstico. Para finalmente sugerir recomendaciones que consideramos necesarias a fin de precisar diagnósticos, terapeúticas y continuar con el curso investigatorio de valoración de epistaxis