Rhinologist Use of Antibiotics With Nasal Packing for Epistaxis.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence supporting the usage of prophylactic antibiotics in the setting of nasal packing for epistaxis. It is unclear what current antiobiotic usage patterns are by otolaryngologists. OBJECTIVES: Characterize the antibiotic prescribing practices employed by otolaryngologists in the management of epistaxis patients treated with packing as well as the underlying rationale. Explore the impact of experience, geography, and academic affiliation on treatment decisions. METHODS: An anonymous survey of antibiotic prescribing patterns for patients with epistaxis requiring nasal packing was distributed to all physician members of the American Rhinologic Society. Responses to each question were descriptively summarized including 95% confidence intervals and were linked to demographics using Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and thirteen surveys were distributed with 307 responses (27.6%). Antibiotic prescription rates varied based on packing type, with 20.0% prescribing antibiotics for dissolvable packing compared to 84.2% to 84.6% for nondissolvable packing. The absorbance of nondissolvable packing does not impact the decision to prescribe antibiotics (P > .999). Precisely 69.7% (95% CI: 64.0%-74.8%) stop antibiotics immediately following packing removal. Precisely 85.6% (95% CI: 81.6%-89.9%) cite the risk of toxic shock syndrome (TSS) when prescribing antibiotics. Notable regional differences include greater utilization of amoxicillin-clavulanate in the Midwest (67.6%) and Northeast (61.4%) as compared with the South (42.1%) and West (45.1%) (P = .013). Further, years in practice were positively associated with several patterns including prescribing antibiotics for patients with dissolvable packing (P = .008), citing prevention of sinusitis as a rationale for antibiotic use (P < .001), and a higher likelihood of having treated a patient with TSS (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic use in patients with epistaxis controlled with nondissolvable packing is common. Treatment patterns are influenced by geography, years in practice, and practice type. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Characterization of newborn hearing screening failures in multigestational births.

OBJECTIVE: To define the rate and characterize the type of newborn hearing screening failures in multigestational births. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all multigestational births that occurred in a 10-year period (2002-2012) in which at least one newborn failed newborn hearing screening at two tertiary care hospitals in the Northwell Health System. RESULTS: Out of 125,405 total births, we identified 2961 multigestational births, of which 59 (2.0%) newborns failed newborn hearing screening. None of their 66 twin/triplet siblings failed their newborn hearing screens. Of 43 newborns that returned for follow-up, 56.0% (24/43) had confirmed hearing loss, resulting in an overall rate of 0.81% in all multigestational newborns with hearing loss. Of 19 infants that passed repeat testing, two were judged to need myringotomy tube placement. Twenty-four infants had a confirmed hearing loss, 11 of which had sensorineural hearing loss (0.37%), and 13 with a conductive or mixed hearing loss (0.44%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a greater than expected risk of conductive hearing loss, not attributable to otitis media, than sensorineural hearing loss in this population. These observations are consistent with the increased risk of birth defects in multigestational births.