Arterial ligation versus embolization in epistaxis management: Counterintuitive national trends

Posterior epistaxis management: review of the literature and proposed guidelines of the hellenic rhinological-facial plastic surgery society

PURPOSE

Posterior epistaxis is a common emergency in ENT practice varying in severity and treatment. Many management guidelines have been proposed, all of which are a product of retrospective analyses due to the nature of this pathology, as large-scale double-blind studies are impossible-even unethical-to conduct. The purpose of this review is to perform a thorough analysis and comparison of every treatment plan available and establish guidelines for the best possible outcome in accordance to every parameter studied. Given the extensive heterogeneity of information and the multitude of studies on this topic, along with the comparison of various treatment options, we opted for a literature review as our research approach.

METHODS

A review of the literature was performed using PubMed Database and search terms included "posterior epistaxis", "treatment", "management", "guidelines", "algorithm" "nasal packing", "posterior packing", "surgery", "SPA ligation", "embolization", "risk factors" or a combination of the above.

RESULTS

Initial patients' assessment invariably results in most cases in posterior packing. There seems to be a superiority in recent literature of early surgery over nasal packing as a definitive treatment. Embolization is usually used after surgery failure, except for specific occasions.

CONCLUSION

Despite the vast heterogeneity of information, there seems to be a need for re-evaluation of the well-established treatment plans according to more recent studies.

Endovascular Embolization for Epistaxis: A Single Center Experience and Meta-Analysis

The optimal treatment for intractable epistaxis is still controversial. Various studies have demonstrated high success rates and low complication rates for endovascular embolization. Herein, the authors report an institutional experience and meta-analysis in terms of efficacy and safety of endovascular embolization of intractable epistaxis. This was a retrospective observational study of 35 patients with epistaxis who underwent 40 embolization procedures between 2010 and 2023. The primary outcome was immediate success defined by immediate cessation of epistaxis at the end of the procedure. Immediate success was achieved in most of the procedures (39, 97.5%). During follow-up, three (7.5%) patients experienced a rebleed. Forty-one studies from 3595 articles were identified for inclusion in the meta-analysis and comprised 1632 patients. The mean pooled age was 57.5 years (95% CI: 57.2-57.8) and most patients were males (mean: 70.4, 95% CI: 69.8-71.0). Immediate success was achieved at a pooled mean of 90.9% (95% CI: 90.4-91.4) and rebleeding was observed at a pooled mean of 17% (95% CI: 16.5-17.5). In conclusion, endovascular embolization proved to be both safe and effective in treating intractable epistaxis carrying a low risk of post-operative stroke.

Variations in utilization and clinical outcomes for endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation and endovascular arterial embolization in a single multi-hospital network

PURPOSE

Endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (ESPAL) and endovascular arterial embolization (EAE) are increasingly common treatment options for patients with refractory epistaxis. The objective of this study was to compare the utilization pattern and clinical outcomes between these interventions within our single multi-hospital network.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of all patients undergoing ESPAL and/or EAE within any of the hospitals in a single healthcare network between 2008 and 2017 was conducted. We compared differences in procedure utilization with various hospital characteristics. Secondarily, we evaluated clinical outcomes and costs associated with each procedure.

RESULTS

Forty-three ESPAL and 33 EAE procedures were performed across 7 hospitals, with the majority of procedures being performed at teaching institutions (65% and 91%, p = .013). The majority of both interventions were performed in larger hospitals and EAE patients were more likely to undergo inter-hospital transfer compared to ESPAL patients (48.5% and 16.3%, p = .02). Success rates for ESPAL and EAE were comparable (95% and 93%); however, the median direct cost of treatment for EAE was significantly higher than the cost for ESPAL ($12984.89 and $5002.02, p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of both ESPAL and EAE interventions were performed at teaching and larger hospitals. Transfers occurring prior to EAE may have been due to the limited availability of interventional radiology services, and likely contributed to the increased cost of treatment. ESPAL is a known cost-effective management strategy and should be considered early in treatment algorithms of refractory epistaxis.

Combination of a negative pressure suction device and endoscope can accurately locate the bleeding site of refractory epistaxis

BACKGROUND

Selective endoscopic coagulation of a nasal bleeding vessel is an effective means of treating epistaxis. Precisely locating the bleeding site(s) is critical.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the utility of combining a negative pressure suction device and endoscope in locating bleeding sites of refractory epistaxis.

METHODS

A total of 116 patients with refractory epistaxis, who underwent systematic endoscopic exploration under local anesthesia in the absence of identifiable sites of bleeding were randomizely divided into two groups via negative pressure group (NPG) and control group (CG): The negative pressure suction device combined with an endoscope was used to re-explore the epistaxis. Nasal bleeding was induced using this method to help the operator locate the site of epistaxis accurately; the bleeding was then stopped using electrocoagulation with the suction electrode. The CG was treated with endoscopic re-exploration and selective tamponade.

RESULTS

Compared with the CG, there were statistically significant differences in length of hospital stay, rebleeding, and postoperative pain and complications (all p < .05).

CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE

Combining a negative pressure suction device and endoscope was a safe and effective technique for accurately locating bleeding sites in patients with refractory epistaxis.

Not All Embolizations Are Created Equally in the Management of Posterior Epistaxis: Discussion of Safety Measures Avoiding Neurological Complications

Today, there are still no uniform guidelines for the treatment of epistaxis. Furthermore, it is widely debated whether embolization or surgical approaches should be the first choice of treatment for intractable posterior epistaxis after conservative measures have failed. In several meta-analyses, it is reported that endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation and embolization have similar success rates, but embolization was associated with more severe neurological complications. Regarding existing literature, there are many comparative analyses of surgical methods but none for embolization protocols. Against this backdrop of a lack of uniform standards in embolization techniques, we present a retrospective evaluation of what has emerged to be best procedural practice for endovascular treatment of epistaxis in our department using microsphere particles and microcoils, in particular regarding precaution measures to avoid neurological complications. In our retrospective data analysis of 141 procedures in 123 patients, performed between 2008 and 2019, we find success rates very similar to those reported in other studies (95.1% immediate-stop-of-bleeding success and 90.2% overall embolization success) but did not encounter any major neurological complication opposed to other reports. We suggest some aspects of our protocol as precaution measure to avoid neurological complications. More generally and perhaps even more importantly, we make a strong case for standardization for embolization techniques to the level of details in surgical procedure standardization to enable an apples to apples comparison of embolization techniques to each other and of intervention vs. surgery.

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.

Endovascular Treatment of Epistaxis

Epistaxis is not uncommon, with up to 60% of the population suffering from at least one episode in their lifetime and as many as 6% presenting for medical attention. An analysis of emergency room (ER) visits in the United States between 2009 and 2011 identified 1.2 million encounters for epistaxis, accounting for 0.32% of ER visits. Approximately 6% of patients will require more aggressive, invasive management in the form of transnasal ligation of the sphenopalatine artery or endovascular embolization. This article reviews the epidemiology, rationale for endovascular treatment, strategy for treatment, endovascular technique, postprocedural follow-up, and complications and their management.

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.

Characteristics and treatment of patients with epistaxis over the last 5 years in Guangzhou

Background:

Epistaxis is one of the most common emergencies in the department of otolaryngology, which gives a burden to the health care system.

Objectives:

This study aimed to investigate the patients’ characteristics of hospital admission with epistaxis and provide an optimized protocol.

Methods:

This study was a retrospective analysis of patients with epistaxis admitted to The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China. The data were analyzed in terms of gender, age, seasonal differences, length and expenses of hospitalization, pathogenesis of epistaxis, primary medical management before hospital admission, bleeding sites, and treatment.

Results:

A total of 387 patients were included, which consisted of 270 males and 117 females with an average of 43 years. Most patients could be identified with underlying diseases, and the most commonly observed bleeding site was Little area (n = 164). Most patients received electrocauterization as a precision medical treatment (n = 288). The duration of hospitalization length ranged from a mean of 5.17–4.48 days, and the expenses of hospitalization ranged from a mean of RMB 4881–4951 yuan over the last 5 years.

Conclusion:

Most patients with epistaxis could be treated as outpatients by endoscopic electrocauterization, and hospitalization is indicated when patients need improvement of poor general condition, posterior packing, embolization, or surgery. This study enables to provide an optimized protocol for patient with epistaxis.

Safety and efficacy of sphenopalatine artery ligation in recalcitrant pediatric epistaxis

BACKGROUND

Epistaxis is a common cause for emergency department visits for both children and adults. In particular, posterior bleeds can be difficult to identify and treat. In adults, endoscopic sphenopalatine artery (SPA) ligation has been shown to be safe, cost-effective, and curative. Conversely, very few studies have delved into the safety and efficacy of SPA ligation in children. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of SPA ligation for treatment of recalcitrant epistaxis in children.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of outcomes in pediatric patients who underwent SPA ligation at a tertiary academic center was performed. Patients with coagulopathies or other underlying conditions were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

Data obtained from 5 patients demonstrated 60% of the population were female, with ages ranging from 2 to 13 years. 7 SPA ligations were performed among the 5 patients, with 3 undergoing unilateral SPA ligation only. The remaining 4 underwent contralateral SPA ligation subsequently. No postoperative complications were observed, and all patients experienced resolution of significant epistaxis.

CONCLUSION

Although additional studies are necessary to further support our findings, SPA ligation in the pediatric population appears to be a safe and effective treatment to control persistent posterior bleeds.

[Principles of interventional treatment in epistaxis]

Epistaxis is a common ear, nose, and throat emergency, but rarely a direct cause for hospital admission. Patients who receive inpatient treatment usually suffer from recurrent posterior epistaxis. Despite otolaryngologic measures such as posterior packing or surgery, bleeding may recur or continue or the source may not be surgically accessible. For these patients, endovascular therapy is a real, sometimes the only, treatment option. In addition to idiopathic causes of posterior epistaxis, the cause may also be symptomatic. In this case, the cause must be identified and treatment adapted accordingly. Pre-embolization CT of the paranasal sinuses and CT-angiography is useful. These methods can reveal the cause and location of the hemorrhage as well as significant vessel variants, anatomic anomalies, or an unsuspected cause of epistaxis. Overall, with a good understanding of the dangerous anastomoses, endovascular therapy for posterior epistaxis has high success rates with a low periprocedural risk.

Cost-effectiveness of trans-nasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation vs arterial embolisation for intractable epistaxis: Long-term analyses

OBJECTIVES

Trans-nasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL) and endovascular arterial embolisation both provide excellent success rates for intractable epistaxis. Recent economic models suggest that TESPAL could be a cost-saving strategy. Our main aim was to perform cost-effectiveness analyses on TESPAL compared with embolisation to treat patients with epistaxis.

DESIGN

We performed retrospective, monocentric, comparative analyses on patients referred to our centre and treated with embolisation or TESPAL.

SETTING

This economic evaluation was carried out from a payer's perspective (ie French National Health Insurance) within a time horizon of 12 months.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-seven TESPAL procedures and thirty-nine embolisation procedures to treat intractable epistaxis were used in the analyses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome is presented as the cost per 1% of non-recurrence. Effectiveness was defined as avoiding recurrence of epistaxis during the 1-year follow-up. Cost estimates were performed from the payer's perspective.

RESULTS

Hospitalisation costs were higher for embolisation compared with TESPAL (5972 vs 3769 euros). On average, hospitalisation costs decreased by 41% when a patient was treated by TESPAL compared with an embolisation strategy (P = 0.06). The presence of comorbidities increased hospitalisation costs by 79% (P = 0.04). TESPAL enabled 1867€ to be gained in intractable epistaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes from our decision model confirm that TESPAL is more cost-effective for patients with intractable epistaxis.

Management of Epistaxis in Children and Adolescents: Avoiding a Chaotic Approach

This article provides an organized foundation that facilitates the management of acute epistaxis and an understanding of features that merit further diagnostic workup. Prompt management, including measures such as holding pressure and using nasal packing, takes precedence over comprehensive diagnostic workup. Severe, recurrent, and posteriorly based bleeds should prompt consideration of alternate interventions and expert consultation.

Transnasal Endoscopic Sphenopalatine Artery Ligation Compared With Embolization for Intractable Epistaxis: A Long-term Analysis

Background Transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL) and selective embolization both provide excellent treatment success rate in the management of intractable epistaxis. Few long-term studies comparing these approaches have been previously published. Recommendations often present these techniques as alternatives, but there is no clear consensus. Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of sphenopalatine artery ligation versus embolization to control intractable epistaxis. Methods We performed a retrospective study including all patients referred to our tertiary medical center for severe epistaxis and treated by surgical ligation and/or embolization. The patients were classified into 2 groups: those who underwent TESPAL only and those who underwent endovascular embolization only. We evaluate and compare long-term clinical outcomes after surgical ligation or embolization for the control of intractable epistaxis in terms of effectiveness (recurrence rate) and safety (complication rate). Results Forty-one procedures of supraselective embolization and 39 procedures of surgical ligation for intractable epistaxis are reported and analyzed. No significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of demographic factors, comorbidities, or average length of hospital stay. The 1-year success rate was similar (75%) in both groups. Complications (minor and/or major) occurred in 34% cases in the embolization group and in 18% in the surgical group ( P = .09, ns). Bilateral embolization including facial artery was the only treatment method associated with a significant risk of complications ( P = .015). Conclusion TESPAL seems to provide a similar control rate with a decrease in the number of complications compared to selective embolization in the context of intractable epistaxis. Further studies are required.

Current Approaches to Epistaxis Treatment in Primary and Secondary Care

BACKGROUND

The lifetime prevalence of epistaxis is approximately 60%, and 6-10% of the affected persons need medical care. In rare cases, severe bleeding calls for the rapid initiation of effective treatment.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent articles that were retrieved by a selective search PubMed, and on the authors' clinical experience.

RESULTS

There are no German guidelines for the management of epistaxis. The available evidence consists mainly of retro spective analyses and expert opinions. 65-75% of the patients who require treatment can be adequately cared for by their primary care physician or by an emergency physician with baseline measures. If there is persistent anterior epistaxis, an otorhinolaryngologist can control the bleeding sastisfactorily in 78-88% of cases with chemical or electrical cauterization. Nasal packing is used if this treatment fails, or for posterior epistaxis. In a retrospective study, surgical treatment was found to be more effective than nasal packing in the treatment of posterior epistaxis (97% versus 62% treatment success). Percutaneous embolization is an alternative treatment for patients whom general anesthesia would put at high risk.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of severe or recurrent epistaxis requires the interdisciplinary collaboration of the primary care physician, the emergency physician, the practice-based otolaryngologist, and the hospital otolaryngology service. Uniform guidelines and epidemiological studies on this topic would be desirable.

Impact of liver disease on outcomes of patients hospitalized for epistaxis

OBJECTIVES

Liver disease (LD) often results in coagulation abnormalities that may predispose to more severe epistaxis. The purpose of this analysis was to examine characteristics of patients hospitalized for epistaxis with LD and explore the impact of LD on patient outcomes.

METHODS

The 2002 to 2013 National Inpatient Sample was queried for cases with a primary diagnosis of epistaxis. Cases with additional codes meeting the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's definition of LD were identified and compared to the non-LD cohort.

RESULTS

Out of 39,879 cases meeting inclusion criteria, 3.6% had LD. LD was associated with younger age (55.7 years vs. 67.5 years; P < 0.001), longer hospital stay (3.9 days vs. 3.2 days; P < 0.001), and greater hospital charges ($26,141 vs. $18,200; P < 0.001) compared to the non-LD cohort. LD patients had higher rates of alcohol abuse, coagulopathy, chronic blood loss anemia, and renal failure. LD patients also had higher rates of sepsis, urinary/renal complications, respiratory failure, and infectious pneumonia. LD was associated with decreased rates of aggressive management (defined as ligation or embolization) (6.6%-9.0%; P < 0.002) and anterior or posterior nasal packing. In our multivariate logistic regression model correcting for age, gender, race, and significant comorbidities, LD was associated with 1.520 (1.336-1.729; P < 0.001) greater odds of transfusion and 2.264 (1.372-3.736; P = 0.001) greater odds of in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

Among patients hospitalized for epistaxis, LD resulted in greater morbidity and mortality. Clinicians should be aware of the particular risk that LD bears on the hospitalized epistaxis patient.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2C. Laryngoscope, 127:2691-2697, 2017.