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.

Alternative interventions for obstructive sleep apnea.

Positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy is the gold standard treatment for patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and has been shown to positively impact quality of life and cardiovascular outcomes. However, not all patients with OSA can use or tolerate PAP therapy. Alternative interventions to PAP include lifestyle measures, surgical interventions, hypoglossal nerve stimulation, oral appliance therapy, and expiratory PAP devices for OSA. While these alternative interventions may benefit patients and have demonstrated improvements in OSA and quality-of-life measures, the cardiovascular impact of these interventions is uncertain as data are limited.

Improving efficiency in epistaxis transfers in a large health system: Analyzing emergency department treatment variability as pretext for a clinical care pathway.

INTRODUCTION: Epistaxis is a common condition with an estimated $100 million in health care costs annually. A significant portion of this stems from Emergency Department (ED) management and hospital transfers. Currently there is no data in the literature clearly depicting the differences in treatment of epistaxis between Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians and Otolaryngologists. Clinical care pathways (CCP) are a way to standardize care and increase efficiency. Our goal was to evaluate the variability in epistaxis management between EM and Otolaryngology physicians in order to determine the potential impact of a system wide clinical care pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective case study was conducted of all patients transferred between emergency departments for epistaxis over an 18-month period. Exclusion criteria comprised patients under 18 years old, recent sinonasal surgery, bleeding disorders, and recent facial trauma. RESULTS: 73 patients met inclusion criteria. EM physicians used nasal cautery in 8%, absorbable packing in 1% and non-absorbable packing in 92% (with 33% being bilateral). In comparison, Otolaryngologists used nasal cautery in 37%, absorbable packing in 34%, and non-absorbable packing in 23%. Eighty percent of patients treated by an Otolaryngology physician required less invasive intervention than previously performed by EM physicians prior to transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Epistaxis management varied significantly between Emergency Medicine and Otolaryngology physicians. Numerous patients were treated immediately with non-absorbable packing. On post-transfer Otolaryngology evaluation, many of these patients required less invasive interventions. This study highlights the variability of epistaxis treatment within our hospital system and warrants the need for a standardized care pathway.

The maxillary nerve block for in-office hybrid balloon sinus dilation procedures: A preliminary study.

Transitioning of rhinologic procedures from the operating room to the office setting in selected patients is a rising trend. An effective pain-control, patient-preparation protocol is essential, especially with advanced in-office rhinologic procedures such as hybrid balloon sinus dilation (BSD), in which other procedures such as ethmoidectomy, turbinate reduction, and other procedures are concomitantly performed. A regimen using oral sedation, topical tetracaine gel, topical tetracaine/epinephrine-soaked cottonoid packs, and intranasal local infiltrative anesthesia can vary significantly in effectiveness and be suboptimal at times (as determined by using treated patients as historical controls). A modification of this regimen was subsequently used, incorporating the maxillary nerve block, and qualitative differences were then assessed retrospectively between the two regimens. Twenty-five consecutive patients were retrospectively studied who underwent hybrid BSD procedures in the office setting using the maxillary nerve-block regimen modification. All patients underwent BSD of the sphenoid, frontal, and maxillary sinuses with anterior and partial posterior ethmoidectomies. Five patients also underwent septoplasty, and 18 patients underwent inferior turbinate reduction procedures. Twenty-four patients received oral sedation, and all patients received topical tetracaine/epinephrine-soaked cottonoid packs. The topical tetracaine gel was dropped after 5 patients because it was not felt to be needed anymore. No intranasal local infiltrative anesthesia was used. Several qualitative differences were observed after modifying the patient-preparation regimen incorporating the maxillary nerve block. The most important observation seen with this modification was a consistently reproducible, dense anesthesia coverage over the entire nasal cavity with good paranasal sinus coverage. This modification eliminated intranasal bleeding and swelling associated with intranasal local anesthetic injections. No complications were encountered. This preliminary study provides support for use and further evaluation of the maxillary nerve block for in-office rhinologic procedures. If the trend continues to rise in performing advanced in-office rhinologic procedures in selected patients, the maxillary nerve block may find a place in the patient-preparation protocol.

The Doyle-Saleh blink reflex.

OBJECTIVES: When performing septoplasty or septorhinoplasty, we have observed that patients blink on injection of local anaesthetic (lidocaine 1 per cent with adrenaline 1:80 000) into the nasal mucosa of the anterior septum or vestibular skin, despite appropriate general anaesthesia. This study sought to quantify this phenomenon by conducting a prospective audit of all patients undergoing septoplasty or septorhinoplasty. METHODS: Patients were observed for a blink reflex at the time of local anaesthetic infiltration into the nasal vestibule. Also measured at this point were propofol target-controlled infusion levels, remifentanil rate, bispectral index, blood pressure, heart rate, pupil size and position, and patient movement. RESULTS: There were 15 blink reflexes in the 30 patients observed. The average bispectral index value was 32.75 (range, 22-50) in the blink group and 26.77 (range, 18-49) in the non-blink group. No patients moved on local anaesthetic injection. CONCLUSION: The blink reflex appears to occur in 50 per cent of patients, despite a deep level of anaesthesia. Without an understanding and appreciation of the blink reflex, this event may result in a request to deepen anaesthesia, but this is not necessary and surgery can proceed safely.

[Effects of hyperbaric oxygen on mucosal inflammatory response after nasal surgery in rabbits].

Objective:To observe the effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the inflammation of rabbit nasal in postoperation period, to investigate the clinical feasibility of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in reducing the inflammatory reaction and promoting mucosal healing in nasal recovery stage after surgery.Method:A total of 16 Japanese white rabbits were randomly assigned to hyperbaric oxygen group and non hyperbaric oxygen group, with 8 in each, and another 5 was divided into normal control group. The non hyperbaric oxygen group was in the normal atmospheric environment, the hyperbaric oxygen group was given hyperbaric oxygen treatment on the fifth day after the operation. All the animals were sacrificed to observe the morphological changes and pathological changes of the mucosa in the bilateral inferior turbinate surgery area at sixth weeks after operation. The normal control group was taken the same part of mucosa.Result:Specimen: hyperbaric oxygen group postoperative empyema in 2 side, 8 side of non hyperbaric oxygen group, hyperbaric oxygen group was significantly reduced compared with non hyperbaric oxygen group, the difference was statistically significant (P< 0.05). Pathological changes: in the hyperbaric oxygen group, the infiltration of inflammatory cells was mild in 12 sides and moderate in 4 sides; the non hyperbaric oxygen group was mild in 1 sides, moderate in 13 sides, and severe in 2 sides, the hyperbaric oxygen group was significantly lower than the non hyperbaric oxygen group, the difference was statistically significant (P< 0.01).Conclusion:Under the condition of this experiment, hyperbaric oxygen therapy can significantly reduce the inflammatory response of rabbit nasal mucosa after operation, and reduce the accumulation of purulent secretion.

Clinical practice guideline: Allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases affecting adults. It is the most common chronic disease in children in the United States today and the fifth most common chronic disease in the United States overall. AR is estimated to affect nearly 1 in every 6 Americans and generates $2 to $5 billion in direct health expenditures annually. It can impair quality of life and, through loss of work and school attendance, is responsible for as much as $2 to $4 billion in lost productivity annually. Not surprisingly, myriad diagnostic tests and treatments are used in managing this disorder, yet there is considerable variation in their use. This clinical practice guideline was undertaken to optimize the care of patients with AR by addressing quality improvement opportunities through an evaluation of the available evidence and an assessment of the harm-benefit balance of various diagnostic and management options. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this guideline is to address quality improvement opportunities for all clinicians, in any setting, who are likely to manage patients with AR as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The guideline is intended to be applicable for both pediatric and adult patients with AR. Children under the age of 2 years were excluded from the clinical practice guideline because rhinitis in this population may be different than in older patients and is not informed by the same evidence base. The guideline is intended to focus on a limited number of quality improvement opportunities deemed most important by the working group and is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for diagnosing and managing AR. The recommendations outlined in the guideline are not intended to represent the standard of care for patient management, nor are the recommendations intended to limit treatment or care provided to individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The development group made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend intranasal steroids for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR whose symptoms affect their quality of life. The development group also made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend oral second-generation/less sedating antihistamines for patients with AR and primary complaints of sneezing and itching. The panel made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should make the clinical diagnosis of AR when patients present with a history and physical examination consistent with an allergic cause and 1 or more of the following symptoms: nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, or sneezing. Findings of AR consistent with an allergic cause include, but are not limited to, clear rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, pale discoloration of the nasal mucosa, and red and watery eyes. (2) Clinicians should perform and interpret, or refer to a clinician who can perform and interpret, specific IgE (skin or blood) allergy testing for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR who do not respond to empiric treatment, or when the diagnosis is uncertain, or when knowledge of the specific causative allergen is needed to target therapy. (3) Clinicians should assess patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR for, and document in the medical record, the presence of associated conditions such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, sleep-disordered breathing, conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media. (4) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, immunotherapy (sublingual or subcutaneous) for patients with AR who have inadequate response to symptoms with pharmacologic therapy with or without environmental controls. The panel recommended against (1) clinicians routinely performing sinonasal imaging in patients presenting with symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of AR and (2) clinicians offering oral leukotriene receptor antagonists as primary therapy for patients with AR. The panel group made the following options: (1) Clinicians may advise avoidance of known allergens or may advise environmental controls (ie, removal of pets; the use of air filtration systems, bed covers, and acaricides [chemical agents formulated to kill dust mites]) in patients with AR who have identified allergens that correlate with clinical symptoms. (2) Clinicians may offer intranasal antihistamines for patients with seasonal, perennial, or episodic AR. (3) Clinicians may offer combination pharmacologic therapy in patients with AR who have inadequate response to pharmacologic monotherapy. (4) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a surgeon who can offer, inferior turbinate reduction in patients with AR with nasal airway obstruction and enlarged inferior turbinates who have failed medical management. (5) Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with AR who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy. The development group provided no recommendation regarding the use of herbal therapy for patients with AR.

Hemostatic effect of hot saline irrigation during functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The endoscopically magnified operative field in functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) makes even a small amount of bleeding a potentially significant hindrance. It is thought that irrigation with hot saline during surgery may improve surgical field of view by producing a hemostatic effect. Our objective was to assess the effectiveness of hot saline irrigation (HSI) compared to room temperature saline irrigation (RTSI) in the control of intraoperative bleeding during FESS. METHODS: Sixty-two chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients undergoing FESS were randomized to 2 treatment arms in an equal ratio. Subjects received either HSI (49°C) or RTSI (18°C), 20 mL every 10 minutes, for the duration of FESS. The Boezaart endoscopic field of view grading system was the primary outcome measure. Boezaart score, heart rate, and mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) were recorded at 10-minute intervals between irrigations. RESULTS: Mean endoscopic surgical field of view (Boezaart score) did not significantly differ between the HSI and RTSI groups (1.5 ± 0.6 vs 1.3 ± 0.5; p = 0.23). However, when FESS was longer than 2 hours in duration, the Boezaart scores were significantly better in the HSI group (1.6 ± 0.6 vs 1.2 ± 0.4; p = 0.04). We found that blood loss per minute was significantly reduced (p = 0.02) in all cases in which HSI was used (2.3 ± 1.0) compared to RTSI (1.7 ± 1.1). Despite this, heart rate (p = 0.32) and MABP (p = 0.14) did not significantly differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: HSI may be beneficial in improving surgical field of view in FESS after 2 hours of operating time. A significant reduction in rate of blood loss may be attained with HSI.