Epistaxis in the setting of antithrombotic therapy: A comparison between factor Xa inhibitors, warfarin, and antiplatelet agents

The impact of different anticoagulants and antiplatelets regimens on acute epistaxis outcomes

BACKGROUND

The impact of anticoagulants (AC) and antiplatelets (AP) on the management of acute epistaxis remains unclear. This study investigated the association between AC/AP therapy and treatment outcomes in patients with acute epistaxis.

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective analysis of patients presented to the otolaryngology emergency room with acute epistaxis (2014-2022). Patients were categorized based on their regular medications: AP, dual AP therapy (DAPT), new oral anticoagulants (NOAC), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or no regular AC/AP use (control group). Outcome measures included rates of minor interventions (chemical or electrical cautery, nasal tamponade), major interventions (endoscopic ligation, embolization), recurrent emergency department visits, admission rates, and duration.

RESULTS

786 patients were included with an average follow-up period of 52.56 ± 20.4 months. Compared to the control group, patients on AP, DAPT, or VKA had significantly higher rates of minor interventions (63.1% vs. 74.4%, 79.6%, and 77.3%, respectively, p < 0.05). DAPT users exhibited a higher rate of major interventions than the control (5.6% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.053). NOAC users showed no significant difference in minor interventions compared to control and required no major interventions. Both NOAC and VKA users had significantly higher rates of recurrent epistaxis events and prolonged hospitalization compared to the control (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

NOAC demonstrated more favorable outcomes than VKA in patients with acute epistaxis, and DAPT use was associated with an increased need for major interventions. These findings suggest a more conservative approach in NOAC users than other AC/AP agents.

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.

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.

Incidence and Predictors of Clinically Significant Bleedings after Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Closure

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is performed in patients unsuitable for long-term anticoagulation, predominantly due to prior bleeding events. The study aimed to investigate the incidence and predictors of clinically significant bleeding (CSB) post-LAAC.

METHODS

Consecutive patients after LAAC with an Amplatzer or WATCHMAN device were analyzed (05.2014-11.2019). Bleeding was classified as CSB when associated with at least one of the following: death, ≥2 g/dL hemoglobin drop, ≥2 blood units transfusion, critical anatomic site, or hospitalization/invasive procedure.

RESULTS

Among 195 patients (age 74 (68-80), 43.1% females, HAS-BLED score 2.0 (2.0-3.0)), during median follow-up of 370 (IQR, 358-392) days, there were 15 nonprocedural CSBs in 14 (7.2%) patients. Of those, 9 (60.0%) occurred during postprocedural dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) (median 46 (IQR: 16-60) days post-LAAC) vs. 6 (40%) after DAPT discontinuation (median 124 (81-210) days post-LAAC), translating into annualized CSB rates of 14.0% (per patient-year on DAPT) vs. 4.6% (per patient-year without DAPT). In 92.9% (13/14) of patients, the post-LAAC nonprocedural CSB was a recurrence from the same site as bleeding pre-LAAC. In the multivariable model, admission systolic blood pressure (SBP) > 127 mmHg (HR = 10.73, 1.37-84.26, p = 0.024), epistaxis history (HR = 5.84, 1.32-25.89, p = 0.020), permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) (HR = 4.55, 1.20-17.20, p = 0.025), and prior gastrointestinal bleeding (HR = 3.35, 1.01-11.08, p = 0.048) predicted post-LAAC CSB.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonprocedural CSBs after LAAC, with a similar origin as the pre-LAAC bleedings, were observed predominantly during postprocedural DAPT and predicted by elevated admission SBP, prior epistaxis, permanent AF, and gastrointestinal bleeding history. Whether a more reserved post-LAAC antiplatelet regimen and stringent blood pressure control may improve LAAC outcomes remains to be studied.

Warfarin is associated with higher rates of epistaxis compared to direct oral anticoagulants: A nationwide propensity score-weighted study

BACKGROUND

Although epistaxis is one of the most common side effects of oral anticoagulation, it is unclear whether epistaxis rates vary between different oral anticoagulants (OAC).

OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of clinically relevant epistaxis between OAC.

METHODS

Epistaxis event rates were compared between new users of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin in a nationwide population-based cohort study over a 5-year study period, 2014-2019. Data was collected from the Icelandic Medicine Registry and the five major hospitals in Iceland. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to yield balanced baseline characteristics, and epistaxis rates were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression.

RESULTS

During the study period, 2098 patients received apixaban, 474 dabigatran, 3106 rivaroxaban, and 1403 warfarin. In total, 93 patients presented with clinically relevant epistaxis, including 11 (12%) major epistaxis events and one fatal epistaxis episode. Furthermore, seven patients (9%) with non-major epistaxis later presented with major bleeding during the follow-up period. Warfarin use was associated with higher rates of epistaxis compared to apixaban (2.2 events per 100-person years (events/100-py) vs. 0.6 events/100-py, hazard ratio [HR] 4.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-8.59, p < 0.001), rivaroxaban (2.2 events/100-py vs. 1.0 events/100-py, HR 2.26, 95% CI 1.28-4.01, p = 0.005), and dabigatran (2.2 events/100-py vs. no events, HR n/a, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Warfarin treatment was associated with higher rates of clinically relevant epistaxis compared to direct oral anticoagulants.

A retrospective review of spontaneous epistaxis outcomes for patients on novel oral anticoagulants compared to antiplatelets and warfarin

AIMS

The incidence of epistaxis-related admissions amongst elderly patients is rising due to the increasing use of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents. This retrospective study evaluates the differences in outcomes for patients on warfarin, novel anticoagulants (NOACs) and antiplatelets over two different time periods.

METHODOLOGY

Retrospective case-control study with data from patients admitted with epistaxis through the Flinders Medical Centre Emergency Department in the first six months of 2013 and compared to the same period in 2018. The latter coincides with integration of NOACs into Australian prescribing practices. Included participants were ≥50 years with spontaneous epistaxis which coincides with peak incidence in adults. Exclusion criteria were epistaxis due to trauma, intrinsic coagulopathy, or recent post-surgery. Linear regression and binary logistic regression models were the statistical methods used.

RESULTS

Data from 85 patients were analysed for length of stay (LOS), readmission rates and method of haemostasis. In 2013, 41 patients were included compared to 44 in 2018, suggesting a 7% increase in admissions rates but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.96). The proportion of patients admitted with epistaxis while taking an anticoagulant or antiplatelet agent increased from 66% in 2013 to 93% in 2018. Thirty six percent of patients in 2018 were taking NOACs, however, LOS was 2 times shorter (mean ratio = 2.08 days, 95% CI: 1.03, 4.19). Seven percent of patients in 2018 had bleeding requiring surgery or interventional radiology, compared to 12% in 2013, but this was not statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference in readmission rates (p = 0.82) or intervention required (p = 0.74) between the two time periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Epistaxis admissions at our institution have increased since the introduction of NOACs. However, most patients can be managed successfully with intranasal packing and cautery alone. NOACs are not associated with increased rated of invasive haemostatic measures and patients have a shorter LOS.

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 Impact of Traditional Anticoagulants, Novel Anticoagulants, and Antiplatelets on Epistaxis

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

Anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications (ACAP) are known to be associated with an increased risk for epistaxis. There are conflicting results regarding the impact of Novel Oral Anticoagulants (NOAC) on epistaxis and its severity.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review of patients who were admitted to the ED in our tertiary level hospital with a diagnosis of epistaxis during the years 2012 to 2018.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients presenting to tertiary level emergency otolaryngological care during the years 2012 to 2018. The impact of various ACAP medications on epistaxis severity, hospital admission, and recurrence was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 470 patients were identified. Two hundred and twenty-nine patients (49%), were not on any anticoagulant/antiplatelet (ACAP) medications (controls) and 241 patients (51%) were taking at least one ACAP medication (ACAP group). Patients in the ACAP group were at a higher risk for severe epistaxis (OR = 1.8, P < .05) and were more likely to be hospitalized (OR = 2.17, P < .05). Surprisingly, the risk for recurrence was similar in the ACAP and control groups (15%, P > .05). Compared to controls, Warfarin and Enoxaparin increased the overall risk for severe epistaxis (OR = 4.4, P < .05) and for hospital admission (OR = 2.1, P < .05). Specifically, an increased risk for posterior tamponade (OR = 19, P < .001), significant blood loss (OR = 4.4, P = .032), and blood transfusion (OR = 4.7, P = .007) were identified as well. Interestingly, NOACs were not associated with increased risk for severe epistaxis, hospital admission, tamponade, and significant blood loss or blood transfusion compared to controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to older generation anticoagulants and antiplatelet medications, NOACs demonstrated an improved safety profile, in terms of epistaxis severity, need for hospital admission and outcomes. These results may suggest a more conservative approach and less hospitalization when treating epistaxis in patients receiving NOACs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 131:1946-1951, 2021.

Manejo de epistaxis en pacientes con terapia antitrombótica

Introducción y objetivo: la epistaxis es una de las urgencias otorrinolaringológicas más frecuentes. Una de sus causas son las alteraciones de la hemostasia provocadas por fármacos antitrombóticos. El objetivo del estudio es determinar si existen diferencias en el manejo de epistaxis entre pacientes con terapia antitrombótica y pacientes controles. Método: estudio observacional analítico retrospectivo de pacientes ingresados en el servicio de Otorrinolaringología de un hospital de tercer nivel, entre enero de 2010 y diciembre de 2016. Se han recogido características epidemiológicas, clínicas y terapéuticas de los pacientes a través de su historia clínica electrónica y se ha realizado análisis estadístico comparativo entre los pacientes con terapia antitrombótica y pacientes controles. Resultados: 85 pacientes analizados (74,1% varones) con una edad media al diagnóstico de 66,7 años. El 49,4% realizaban terapia antitrombótica. En todos los pacientes se realizó taponamiento anterior y en 16 pacientes, posterior. 37 pacientes precisaron cirugía endoscópica nasal. La embolización se realizó en cuatro pacientes. En el estudio estadístico comparativo no se han encontrado diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre ambos grupos en ninguna de las variables analizadas. Discusión y conclusiones: las indicaciones actuales de terapia antitrombótica son muy amplias y por ello es frecuente atender epistaxis en este tipo de pacientes. Aunque no está claramente demostrado que la terapia antitrombótica por sí sola se asocie con sangrados más graves, creemos que es fundamental realizar un manejo multidisciplinar de estos pacientes con el fin de conseguir un adecuado control del sangrado sin necesidad de recurrir a intervenciones más agresivas.