Providing Evidence for Dogma: Risk of Epistaxis After COVID-19 Nasal-Screening Swab.

OBJECTIVE: There is anecdotal evidence SARS-CoV-2 (COVID) RT-PCR screening nasal swabs confer an elevated epistaxis risk. We aimed to assess the association between epistaxis and exposure to a COVID nasal swab. STUDY DESIGN: A matched pairs design was used. SETTING: The study was performed in a single, integrated health care system. METHODS: All patients who received a single COVID nasal swab at our institution between April 2020 and March 2021 were included. McNemar's test was used to compare rates of epistaxis between the 7 days following the index COVID swab (hazard period), and the 7 days preceding the index COVID swab (control period). Conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate sociodemographic and clinical risk factors for epistaxis. RESULTS: A total of 827,987 participants were included, with 1047 epistaxis encounters. The prevalence of epistaxis during the hazard and control periods were 0.08% and 0.04%, respectively. Swab exposure was associated with 1.92-fold odds of epistaxis during the hazard period (95% confidence interval [1.73, 2.12]). Older age, Asian/Pacific Islander (PI) (compared to white), male sex, hypertension, prior facial trauma, and warfarin or direct-acting oral anticoagulant use were also associated with significantly increased odds of epistaxis (p ≦ 0.01). CONCLUSION: COVID nasal swabs are associated with increased odds of epistaxis. Physicians should counsel patients, particularly those at the highest risk, including a history of prior facial trauma, anticoagulants/antiplatelets, or hypertension.

Management of epistaxis in patients on novel oral anticoagulation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Individuals on anticoagulation therapy are at increased risk of bleeding, including epistaxis. There is a lack of available reversal agents for novel oral anticoagulation therapy. OBJECTIVE: This paper reviews the current literature on epistaxis in the context of novel oral anticoagulation use, in order to recommend guidelines on management. METHOD: A comprehensive search of published literature was conducted to identify all relevant articles published up to April 2019. RESULTS: Patients on oral anticoagulation therapy are over-represented in individuals with epistaxis. Those on novel oral anticoagulation therapy were more likely to relapse compared to patients on classic oral anticoagulants or non-anticoagulated patients. Idarucizumab is an effective antidote for bleeding associated with dabigatran use. Recommendations for epistaxis management in patients on novel oral anticoagulation therapy are outlined. CONCLUSION: Clinicians need to be aware of the potential severity of epistaxis and the increased likelihood of recurrence. High-quality studies are required to determine the efficacy and safety of andexanet alfa and ciraparantag, as well as non-specific reversal agents.

An International Survey on the pragmatic management of epistaxis.

Epistaxis is one of the most common ear, nose and throat emergencies. The management of epistaxis has evolved significantly in recent years, including the use of nasal cautery and packs. However, a correct treatment requires the knowledge of nasal anatomy, potential risks, and complications of treatment. Epistaxis is often a simple and readily treatable condition, even though a significant bleed may have potentially severe consequences. At present, there are very few guidelines concerning this topic. The current Survey explored the pragmatic approach in managing epistaxis. A questionnaire, including 7 practical questions has been used. The current International Survey on epistaxis management reported a relevant prevalence (21.7%), mainly during childhood and senescence, an important hospitalization rate (11.8%), the common use of anterior packing and electrocoagulation, and the popular prescription of a vitamin supplement and intranasal creams.

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.

Prognostic factors of hemorrhagic complications after oxaliplatin-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: Toward routine preoperative dosage of Von Willebrand factor?

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC-ox) induces specific morbidity with hemorrhagic complications (HC). The aim of this study was to identify preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative HC predictive factors after HIPEC-ox. METHODS: A prospective single center study that included all consecutive patients treated with curative-intent HIPEC-ox, whatever the origin of peritoneal disease, was conducted. All patients underwent systematic blood tests exploring primary hemostasis and endothelial activation before surgical incision (D0) and on postoperative days 2 (POD2) and 5 (POD5). RESULTS: Between May 2012 and August 2015, 47 patients were enrolled in the study. The overall HC rate was 38%. Major morbidity was significantly higher in patients with HC. Patients presenting HC were significantly more often affected with pseudomyxoma peritonei and had less preoperative chemotherapy. Multivariate analysis showed that a higher plasmatic level of Von Willebrand factor antigen at D0 (D0 VWF:Ag) was a protective predictive factor for HC (p = 0.049, HR: 0.97 CI 95% [0.94-1.00]). A D0 VWF:Ag level below 138% had a sensitivity of 87.5%, a specificity of 67% and an area under the curve of 80.3% (CI 95% [66.5-94], p < 0.01) for predicting HC. CONCLUSIONS: Through the identification of prognostic factors, this study highlighted a subgroup of patients with low risk of HC after HIPEC-ox. Based on these results, we propose a routine preoperative dosage of VWF that would help the surgeon to select the most suitable patients for HIPEC-ox.

Hemorrhage-adjusted iron requirements, hematinics and hepcidin define hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia as a model of hemorrhagic iron deficiency.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency anemia remains a major global health problem. Higher iron demands provide the potential for a targeted preventative approach before anemia develops. The primary study objective was to develop and validate a metric that stratifies recommended dietary iron intake to compensate for patient-specific non-menstrual hemorrhagic losses. The secondary objective was to examine whether iron deficiency can be attributed to under-replacement of epistaxis (nosebleed) hemorrhagic iron losses in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The hemorrhage adjusted iron requirement (HAIR) sums the recommended dietary allowance, and iron required to replace additional quantified hemorrhagic losses, based on the pre-menopausal increment to compensate for menstrual losses (formula provided). In a study population of 50 HHT patients completing concurrent dietary and nosebleed questionnaires, 43/50 (86%) met their recommended dietary allowance, but only 10/50 (20%) met their HAIR. Higher HAIR was a powerful predictor of lower hemoglobin (p = 0.009), lower mean corpuscular hemoglobin content (p<0.001), lower log-transformed serum iron (p = 0.009), and higher log-transformed red cell distribution width (p<0.001). There was no evidence of generalised abnormalities in iron handling Ferritin and ferritin(2) explained 60% of the hepcidin variance (p<0.001), and the mean hepcidinferritin ratio was similar to reported controls. Iron supplement use increased the proportion of individuals meeting their HAIR, and blunted associations between HAIR and hematinic indices. Once adjusted for supplement use however, reciprocal relationships between HAIR and hemoglobin/serum iron persisted. Of 568 individuals using iron tablets, most reported problems completing the course. For patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, persistent anemia was reported three-times more frequently if iron tablets caused diarrhea or needed to be stopped. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: HAIR values, providing an indication of individuals' iron requirements, may be a useful tool in prevention, assessment and management of iron deficiency. Iron deficiency in HHT can be explained by under-replacement of nosebleed hemorrhagic iron losses.

Estudio retrospectivo de epístaxis ingresadas: etiopatogenia, tratamiento y evolución clínica / Retrospective study of inpatients epistaxis: etiopathogenesis, treatment and clinical evolution

Presentamos un estudio retrospectivo sobre 172 pacientes ingresados en nuestro Hospital con diagnóstico de Epístaxis entre los años 1990 y 2000. 131 pacientes eran varones (76,16 per cent) frente a 41 mujeres, con una edad media de 59 años. Recogemos una serie de variables en la historia clínica: Año y mes del ingreso, hábito tabáquico y enólico, presencia o ausencia de HTA, diabetes, catarros previos, EPOC, consumo de fármacos ( sobre todo anticoagulantes), patología cardíaca asociada y epístaxis previas. El 70,9 per cent de los ingresos correspondían a epístaxis posteriores, siendo algo más frecuentes las originadas en la fosa nasal izquierda. En 85 casos se realizó taponamiento nasal posterior; 9 pacientes requirieron cauterización endoscópica bajo anestesia general ; en un caso se procedió a realizar ligadura de la carótida externa y cuatro pacientes requirieron embolización para el control de su epístaxis. La evolución fue buena en general. 65 pacientes sufrieron anemia, de los que 20 precisaron transfusión sanguínea. La estancia media fue de 6 días, oscilando entre 1 y 42 días. Analizamos los resultados comparándolos con otras series publicadas (AU)

Topical estrogens combined with argon plasma coagulation in the management of epistaxis in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.

The aim of this study was to assess the value of topically applied estrogens in patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia. Twenty-six patients with this disorder were treated with argon plasma coagulation and randomized into 2 groups: group A, which had postoperative application of estriol ointment (n = 14), and group B, which had postoperative application of dexpanthenol ointment (n = 12). Over a period of 12 months, the frequency and intensity of bleeding, the patient's satisfaction, and the success of the treatment were evaluated with a questionnaire. Before the operation, more than 90% of the patients in both groups complained of daily episodes of epistaxis. Twelve months after treatment, the frequency and intensity of bleeding had significantly decreased in group A as compared to group B. Of the patients in group A, 93% were satisfied with the treatment. Of the patients in group B, only 42% were satisfied with the treatment. In both groups, more than 90% of the patients were willing to undergo the same treatment again. The combined treatment approach with argon plasma coagulation and topical estriol enables us to significantly prolong the hemorrhage-free interval.