Treatment disparities in the management of epistaxis in United States emergency departments

Demographic Differences in Emergency Room Epistaxis Treatment Patterns and Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Investigate the association between demographic characteristics and emergency department (ED) epistaxis management and outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

TriNetX US collaborative database.

METHODS

Adults presenting to the ED for epistaxis were retrospectively followed for 7 days. Spanish-speaking patients were propensity score matched to English-speaking patients by demographics and medical history. Outcomes included use of nasal decongestant, nasal packing or cautery, diagnostic nasal endoscopy, endoscopic control of hemorrhage, hospital admission, and mortality. The analysis was also performed with stratification by race and ethnicity.

RESULTS

Spanish-speaking patients were less likely to receive nasal packing or cautery [odds ratio, OR: 0.78; 95% confidence interval, CI: (0.68; 0.90)] or diagnostic nasal endoscopy [OR: 0.72; 95% CI: (0.52; 0.98)] compared to English-speaking patients. Black patients were more likely to receive treatment with a nasal decongestant spray [OR: 1.31; 95% CI: (1.27, 1.36)], but less likely to receive any other treatment compared to White patients. Asian patients were less likely to undergo nasal packing or cautery [OR: 0.90; 95% CI: (0.82; 0.99)], but had more ED visits [(1.37; 1.32) P < .01] compared to White patients. Hispanic patients were less likely to be admitted [OR: 0.93; 95% CI: (0.87; 0.98)], and averaged fewer ED visits [(1.27; 1.30) P = <.0001] compared to non-Hispanic patients.

CONCLUSION

While demographic trends in ED epistaxis management are nuanced, our results suggest that Spanish-speaking, Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients are less likely to receive diagnostic and epistaxis control procedures. Additional research is needed to determine the etiology of these differences.

Treatment, Management, and Otolaryngology Consultation for Epistaxis in the Emergency Room: An Institutional Experience

BACKGROUND

Epistaxis is a common reason for emergency department (ED) visits, accounting for approximately 1 of every 200 ED visits in the United States annually and up to one-third of all otolaryngology (ENT)-related ED encounters.

OBJECTIVES

To detail reasons for ENT consultation for epistaxis in the ED, understand how consultation impacts patient care, assess follow-up patterns after emergency care, and study patient care after transfer or referral into the ED.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of 592 adult patients with epistaxis managed in a tertiary care ED setting between 2017 and 2018. Patients with known follow-up, ENT consult in the ED, or admission were included, while patients with trauma, recent head and neck surgery, or abnormal anatomy were excluded.

RESULTS

The most common reasons for ENT consultation for epistaxis were for advanced management, referral to the ED from an outside facility or provider, and recent head and neck surgery. In total, 48.2% of patients treated for epistaxis in the ED received an ENT consultation. ENT consultation was associated with a higher likelihood of receiving absorbable or nonabsorbable packing (92.4% vs 36.1%). In total, 40.4% of patients referred into the ED from an outside facility or provider had no change in their management after receiving an ENT consult. Patients referred to the ED and White patients were significantly more likely to receive an ENT consult. Secondary analyses revealed that more White patients had an established outpatient ENT provider than patients of other races. On multivariate analysis, patients who received an ENT consult spent 75.2 min longer in the ED.

CONCLUSION

The high percentage of patients referred or transferred to the ED for epistaxis management with no change in interventions after ENT consultation indicates a continued need to develop more precise clinical care pathways. Additionally, there may be gaps between White and non-White patients in access to ENT care.

Epistaxis Treatment Options: Literature Review

Epistaxis means bleeding from nostrils, nasal cavity or nasopharynx. To summarize the available epistaxis treatment options. Methods: 61 articles published in the last 20 years were included. Duplicate records, irrelevant and inaccessible ones were excluded.  Epistaxis can be treated with first aid measures such as external pressure and ice packing and applying topical agents, e.g. oxymetazoline that stops 65-75% of nosebleeds in A&E. Also, with electrocautery which is more effective and has fewer recurrences (14.5% vs. 35.1%) than chemical cauterization and applying tranexamic acid that promotes hemostasis in 78% of patients, versus 35% and 31% respectively in patients treated with oxymetazoline and nasal packing. Furthermore, nasal packing can be applied with non-absorbable materials, e.g. petroleum jelly, BIPP gauze, PVA nasal tampons (Merocel), Foley catheter, balloons (Rapid-Rhino), absorbable materials, e.g. nasal tampon (Nasopore), and with newer hemostatic materials which are more effective and with fewer complications, e.g. hemostatic gauzes (Surgicel), thrombin matrix (Floseal), gelatin sponge (Spongostan) and fibrin glue. Moreover, epistaxis can be achieved with endoscopic ligation of arteries, mainly SPA, which is more effective than conventional nasal packing (97% vs. 62%), and with endoscopic cauterization which is more effective than ligation. Finally, for intractable cases embolization can be applied using gelatin sponge, foam, PVA and coils with 80% success rate and comparable efficacy and complications to surgical methods. Epistaxis can be dealt with various methods depending on patient's history and available resources. Newer hemostatic agents in combination with endoscopic methods have advantages over traditional methods.

Risk factors and management outcomes in epistaxis: a tertiary centre experience

BACKGROUND

Risk factors and outcomes associated with severe epistaxis are not well understood. This study explores the associations between epistaxis severity, comorbidities, use of antiplatelets or anticoagulants and management outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of all epistaxis cases presenting to the emergency department at a tertiary academic hospital from January 2016 to December 2019. Epistaxis severity was defined as mild (no intervention), moderate (required cautery and/or packing) and severe (clinical instability with reversal products, surgical or radiological intervention). Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were undertaken, with risk factors and management outcomes analysed according to severity.

RESULTS

A total of 543 patients with epistaxis (54.2% male, mean age 74.4 ± 15.7 years) were included in this study, with 14.7% (80) having severe epistaxis. Of these presentations 216 (39.8%) were on antiplatelets, while 207 (38.1%) were on anticoagulants. In univariate analyses, clopidogrel use, hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT), haematological malignancy, bleeding disorders and chronic liver disease (CLD) were associated with moderate to severe epistaxis (P < 0.05), while the use of rivaroxaban was inversely associated severity (P = 0.002). Only HHT, haematological malignancy and CLD remained significant in multivariate models. Cautery as first-line management was infrequently utilized while anticoagulation was frequently withheld. A longer length of stay (1.1 days vs. 4.3 days; P < 0.001) and higher 2-week readmission rates (2.2% vs. 12.5%; P < 0.001) were noted with severe epistaxis compared with mild presentations.

CONCLUSION

Epistaxis severity is associated with certain clinical conditions and poor outcomes. Despite recommended guidelines, variations in first-line management were evident.

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 healthcare 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.

Analysis of Care and Outcomes for Epistaxis Weekend Admissions

OBJECTIVES

To study differences in care of patients admitted for epistaxis during the weekend compared to the weekday.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database review.

SETTING

2003 to 2014 National Inpatient Sample.

METHODS

Patients admitted for a primary diagnosis of epistaxis were extracted from the National Inpatient Sample from 2003 to 2014. Univariate and multivariate analyses were applied to assess differences in patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes between weekend and weekday admissions.

RESULTS

A total of 39,329 cases were included in our study cohort, with 28,458 weekday admissions and 10,892 weekend admissions. There was no significant difference in patient race, gender, insurance status, hospital ownership status, or location between weekend and weekday admissions (p > .05). Most weekend admissions were emergent (82.2%) and were treated with packing (51.8%). Upon performing logistic regression, the likelihood of emergent admission (odds ratio [OR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-1.51, p < .001) and prolonged length of stay (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05-1.17, p < .001) was higher for weekend admissions versus weekday admissions. Moreover, odds of packing for epistaxis were significantly higher (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.09-1.19, p < .001) on the weekend, while odds of ligation (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.97, p = .013) and endovascular arterial embolization (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65-0.84, p < .001) were lower. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality, patient discharge disposition, and total hospital charges (p > .05).

CONCLUSION

Patients primarily admitted for epistaxis over the weekend were more likely to be emergent, experienced prolonged length of stay, and be treated nonoperatively with packing, than weekday admissions. No significant differences in patient insurance or hospital ownership were identified.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

[Epidemiology and modern methods of treatment of non-traumatic nosebleeds]

Data on the detection incidence of nosebleeds (NBs) of non-traumatic origin in the population show considerable variability in statistical indicators, and NBs treatment and consequences depend on the localization of hemorrhage source, the volume of blood loss, patient's general condition, the presence and nature of comorbid pathology and a number of other factors. There are some differences in the choice of NBs treatment options, evaluation of their clinical and economic efficiency, which indicates the need to analyze and systematize the results of such studies.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze data on prevalence and current treatment approaches of non-traumatic nosebleeds.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The search for publications (articles and related abstracts) on the subject of the study, presented in the PubMed database, has been conducted. The choice of material was made according to the following key words: non-traumatic nosebleeds, causes, incidence, methods of stopping nosebleeds.

RESULTS

The literature data show a significant prevalence of NBs in the population, their potential hazard to the life of patient and the importance of clinical and demographic characteristics of persons for determining treatment tactics in each case. In practical terms, primary and secondary NBs should be distinguished. In case of primary NB, the use of coagulation and nasal packing is recommended after determining the place of bleeding. In secondary NB it is necessary to establish its cause in order to assess risk factors and apply appropriate topical or systemic drug therapy. The so-called difficult (difficult-to-treat) NBs deserve special attention. As a rule, these cases involve bleeding from the posterior parts of nose. The analysis of publications shows a high (90%) efficacy of surgical interventions, used as first-line treatment. Effectiveness of embolization in such cases was 75% and of anterior/posterior nasal packing was 62%.

CONCLUSION

The literature data show a significant prevalence of nosebleeds in the population and their potential hazard to the life of patient. The existing differences in the assessments of treatment options for this pathology, their clinical and economic efficiency are the basis for further research, in particular, to clarify the causes of nosebleeds' occurrence and recurrence, the impact of treatment methods on quality of patients' life.

Risk Factors and Management for Epistaxis in a Hospitalized Adult Sample

INTRODUCTION

Epistaxis is a common otolaryngologic problem that affects most of the general population. Common risk factors for epistaxis include nasal irritants, nasal/facial oxygen use, certain systemic conditions (e.g., hypertension and coagulopathies) and medication use (e.g., anticoagulants and intranasal medications). This study examined risk factors for and management of epistaxis in patients admitted for other medical conditions who developed an episode of epistaxis during their hospital admission.

METHODS

Patients were included in the study if they were older than 18, admitted for medical illnesses other than epistaxis and developed an episode of epistaxis during their admission during calendar year 2020 at the authors' institution's hospitals. Electronic health record data regarding sociodemographic characteristics, common risk factors (e.g. oxygen use, anticoagulant use, history of hypertension) and treatment for epistaxis (e.g. holding anticoagulation therapy, administration of oxymetazoline, nasal cautery, nasal packing) were extracted from each chart. Patients were split into otolaryngologic treatment versus no treatment groups and risk factors were compared between sample subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 143 sample patients were included, with most common reason for admission being cardiovascular related, 48 (33.6%). Most patients, 104 (72.7%), did not have a previous diagnosis of epistaxis, were positive for anticoagulant use, 106 (74.1%) and were positive for hypertension, 95 (66.4%). Oxygen use showed a significantly decreased risk for intervention (OR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.23-0.894; p = 0.028). Most patients required changes in medical management (e.g., holding anticoagulation or starting nasal saline sprays/emollients).

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate the common risk factors for epistaxis in patients admitted for other clinical diseases. Identifying at-risk patients for epistaxis at hospital admission can help to initiate measures to prevent epistaxis episodes. Future studies are needed to study epistaxis risk factors and identify effective preventative measures for epistaxis among hospital populations.

Nasal Packing in the Emergency Department: A Practical Review for Emergency Providers

We performed a narrative review of epistaxis management in the emergency department. First, we examined the pathophysiology, the current types of treatment that are available to emergency clinicians. When nasal packing is indicated, we examined the efficacy of nasal packing in addition to other topical treatment such as tranexamic acid and the evidence of prophylactic antibiotics. We detailed current studies involving tranexamic acid and prophylactic antibiotics for nasal packing. Finally, we introduced an epistaxis clinical care pathway, based on current evidence, to aid emergency clinicians with their clinical decision-making processes.

Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in epistaxis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Epistaxis is the most common otolaryngological emergency and up to one third of patients in treated on an inpatient basis take oral anticoagulants (OAC). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), an OAC subgroup, have been on the market since 2010 and are being increasingly prescribed due to the cardiological and haematological guidelines that favour them over vitamin K antagonists (VKA), the older of the OAC subgroups. The present study aims to investigate which subgroup of epistaxis patients taking OACs has a more favourable outcome.

DESIGN/SETTING

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA 2020 statement using the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Continuous data were analysed and standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated according to Hedges' g. Dichotomous data were analysed, and the Mantel-Haenszel method was applied to establish the odds ratio (OR). Heterogeneity was assessed according to the I²  statistics.

MAIN OUTCOME/RESULTS

A total of eight reports covering 1390 patients were included in the final synthesis. The pooled analysis demonstrated significantly shorter hospital stays in the DOAC group (SMD = -0.22, 95% CI-0.42 to -0.02, p = .03) and a significantly higher rate of posterior bleeding in the VKA group (OR = .39, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68, p = .001). No statistically significant differences with regard to recurrence rates, admission rates, the need for transfusion or surgical intervention (p = .57, .12, .57 and .38 respectively) were found.

CONCLUSION

According to this meta-analysis, epistaxis patients taking DOACs have a more favourable outcome than patients taking VKAs.

The power of a checklist: Decrease in emergency department epistaxis transfers after clinical care pathway implementation

BACKGROUND

Annually, epistaxis costs US hospitals over $100 million dollars. Many patients visit emergency departments (ED) with variable treatment, thus providing opportunity for improvement.

OBJECTIVE

To implement an epistaxis clinical care pathway (CCP) in the ED, and analyze its effects on treatment and ED transfers.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary team developed the CCP to be implemented at a tertiary hospital system with 11 satellite EDs. The analysis included matched eight-month periods prior to pathway implementation and after pathway implementation. Subjects included patients with ICD-10 code diagnosis of epistaxis. Patients under 18 years old, recent surgery or trauma, or bleeding disorders were excluded. There were 309 patients from the pre-implementation cohort, 53 of which were transferred and 37 met inclusion criteria; 322 from the post-implementation cohort, 37 of which were transferred, and 15 met inclusion criteria. Outcome measures included epistaxis intervention by ED providers and otolaryngologists before and after pathway implementation.

RESULTS

CCP implementation resulted in a 61% reduction in patient transfers (p < 0.001). ED providers showed a 51% increase in documentation of anterior rhinoscopy with proper equipment, 34% increased use of topical vasoconstrictors, 40% increased use of absorbable packing, 7% decrease in use of unilateral non-absorbable packing, and 17% decrease in use of bilateral non-absorbable packing.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to CCP implementation, ED treatment of epistaxis varied significantly. CCP resulted in standardized treatment and significant reduction in transfers. A CCP checklist is an effective way to standardize care and prevent unnecessary hospital transfers.

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.

Usefulness of computed tomography in predicting ethmoidal arterial bleeding in refractory epistaxis

PURPOSE

Epistaxis that is refractory to conservative management can be treated with endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (ESPAL). Although rare, ethmoidal artery (EA) bleeding can be a cause of rebleeding after successful ESPAL. EA bleeding is diagnosed by angiography and can also be identified during surgical exploration. However, since the angiographic embolization of the EA is contraindicated, surgical hemostasis is mandatory. This study investigated whether paranasal sinus (PNS) CT could provide information for predicting EA bleeding without angiography in patients with refractory epistaxis requiring ESPAL.

METHODS

Forty-seven patients, who were surgically treated [with ESPAL or EA ligation (EAL)] for refractory epistaxis from March 2010 to June 2019, were retrospectively analyzed. A positive PNS CT finding for EA bleeding was defined as the presence of soft tissue densities having continuity with the EA pathway, accompanied by a partially deficient surrounding bony canal. These findings as well as soft tissue densities in each paranasal sinus were compared between the ESPAL and EAL groups.

RESULTS

All patients in the EAL group had positive CT findings of EA bleeding, compared to only 12.2% in the ESPAL group (P < 0.001). The rate of soft tissue densities within the frontal and sphenoid sinuses were noted in 26.8% and 17.1% of patients in the ESPAL group, compared to 83.3% and 83.3% of patients in the EAL group (P = 0.013 and P = 0.003, respectively).

CONCLUSION

PNS CT might be useful for predicting EA bleeding in patients with refractory epistaxis requiring surgical hemostasis.

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.

Association of Socioeconomic Status, Race and Insurance Status with Chronic Rhinosinusitis Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Objective Disparities in health and health care access are widely prevalent. However, disparities among patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) are poorly understood. We investigated if CRS severity at presentation according to socioeconomic factors. Study Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Tertiary rhinology center. Subjects and Methods Three hundred prospectively recruited patients presenting with CRS were included. Outcome variables included CRS symptomatology, as reflected by the 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22); general health status, as reflected by the EuroQol 5-dimensional visual analog scale (EQ-5D VAS); and CRS-related antibiotic and systemic corticosteroid use. Race/ethnicity, zip code income bracket, education level, and insurance status were used as predictor variables. Regression, controlling for clinical and demographic characteristics, was used to determine associations between predictor and outcome variables. Results Mean SNOT-22 score was 33.8 (SD, 23.2), and mean EQ-5D VAS score was 74.2 (SD, 18.9). On multivariable analysis, presenting SNOT-22 and EQ-5D VAS scores were not associated with nonwhite patient race/ethnicity ( P = .634 and P = .866), education ( P = .106 and P = .586), or the percentage of households in zip code with incomes <$50,000 per year ( P = .917 and P = .979, respectively). SNOT-22 scores did not differ by insurance type, but patients receiving Medicare reported worse general health status. Use of oral antibiotics or oral steroids for CRS was not associated with predictor variables. Conclusion Patients with CRS presented to a tertiary rhinology center with similar metrics for CRS severity and pre-presentation medical management regardless of race/ethnicity, education status, or zip code income level. Patients with Medicare had worse general health status. Further research should investigate potential disparities in diagnosis of CRS, specialist referral, and treatment outcomes.