A study to determine the benefits of bilateral versus unilateral nasal packing with Rapid Rhino ® packs

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.

Intranasal packs and haemostatic agents for the management of adult epistaxis: systematic review

Background:

The mainstay of management of epistaxis refractory to first aid and cautery is intranasal packing. This review aimed to identify evidence surrounding nasal pack use.

Method:

A systematic review of the literature was performed using standardised methodology.

Results:

Twenty-seven eligible articles were identified relating to non-dissolvable packs and nine to dissolvable packs. Nasal packing appears to be more effective when applied by trained professionals. For non-dissolvable packs, the re-bleed rates for Rapid Rhino and Merocel were similar, but were higher with bismuth iodoform paraffin paste packing. Rapid Rhino packs were the most tolerated non-dissolvable packs. Evidence indicates that 96 per cent of re-bleeding occurs within the first 4 hours after nasal pack removal. Limited evidence suggests that dissolvable packs are effective and well tolerated by patients. There was a lack of evidence relating to: the duration of pack use, the economic effects of pack choice and the appropriate care setting for non-dissolvable packs.

Conclusion:

Rapid Rhino packs are the best tolerated, with efficacy equivalent to nasal tampons. FloSeal is easy to use, causes less discomfort and may be superior to Merocel in anterior epistaxis cases. There is no strong evidence to support prophylactic antibiotic use.