Guidelines of the French Society of Otorhinolaryngology (SFORL). First-line treatment of epistaxis in adults

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Epistaxis-overview and current aspects]

Nosebleeds (epistaxis) are usually minor. Medical intervention is only necessary in about 6% of cases. The source of bleeding is frequently located in the anterior region of the nose (Kiesselbach's plexus). The estimated lifetime prevalence of epistaxis is 60%. Diffuse epistaxis is often a manifestation of systemic disease. Epistaxis is the leading symptom of Rendu-Osler-Weber disease (hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, HHT). If intervention is required, the first-choice of treatment is bidigital compression for several minutes. Common therapeutic measures include local hemostasis using electrocoagulation or chemical agents, e.g., silver nitrate. Resorbable anterior nasal tampons or tampons with a smooth surface are also frequently employed. In case of failed surgical closure of the sphenopalatine artery, angiographic embolization is the method of choice.

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.

Use of Cryotherapy for Managing Epistaxis in the First Aid Setting: A Scoping Review

Epistaxis, or nosebleed, is bleeding from the nostril(s), nasal cavity, or nasopharynx. Anterior nasal bleeding is the most common location for spontaneous nontraumatic epistaxis and is commonly treated with manual compression to the nasal alae. Cryotherapy is also routinely recommended in conjunction with manual compression in the first aid and ED setting. We performed a scoping review on behalf of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation First Aid Task Force guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We searched Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed databases for published studies, without date restrictions, and we searched the gray literature using Google.com and Google Scholar. The websites of selected resuscitation councils were searched for guidelines relating to the management of epistaxis. References from included studies were hand-searched. Our published and gray literature search identified 1255 and 61,315 records, respectively. After removing duplicates and following selection criteria, we included 21 records from the published literature and 11 records from the gray literature. Our scoping review found that most of the published studies and website documents focused on managing nontraumatic epistaxis in the first aid setting. They provide recommendations for the use of cryotherapy based on expert opinion or indirect evidence extrapolated from cryotherapy-associated changes in nasal submucosal temperature, nasal blood flow, and nasal blood volume in healthy subjects (three studies). We did not identify any prospective, randomized trials comparing the efficacy of cryotherapy as an intervention for nontraumatic epistaxis in the first aid setting. The limited literature identified in this scoping review does not support the development of a systematic review but highlights the need for future research to better understand the role of cryotherapy in the first aid setting.

An image-guided (CT) assessment of a new asymmetric balloon for the treatment of epistaxis

PURPOSE

The main objective was to perform an image-guided (CT) assessment of the efficacy of the CAVI-T™ balloon to compress the sphenopalatine artery (SPA) on cadaver heads, for the management of epistaxis. The secondary objectives were to analyse the deployment and stability of this balloon according to the volume injected into the nasal cavity, to optimise its use.

METHODS

A descriptive anatomical study was performed. The catheterization of the SPA was performed on four fresh-frozen heads with a SPA approach through the maxillary sinus, leaving the nasal cavity unscathed. Computed Tomography images were acquired without and with the balloon, inflated by injections of progressive volumes of diluted iodine, for optimal contrast with the surrounding tissues. We evaluated the positioning of the balloon according to two predetermined markers on the device.

RESULTS

Out of 68 image-guided acquisitions, the CAVI-T™ balloon compressed the SPA in 88% of cases. The other nasal cavity structures were compressed in 86% to 100% of the cases, depending on the positioning of the CAVI-T™ balloon, therefore allowing a complete obstruction of the nasal cavity. The device remained stable upon inflation and did not obstruct the nasopharynx.

CONCLUSION

The CAVI-T™ balloon provided effective compression of the SPA and the different structures of the nasal cavity.

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.

Plain Language Summary: Nosebleed (Epistaxis)

This plain language summary explains nosebleeds, also known as epistaxis (pronounced ep-ih-stak-sis), to patients. The summary applies to any individual aged 3 years and older with a nosebleed or history of nosebleed who needs medical treatment or wants medical advice. It is based on the 2020 "Clinical Practice Guideline: Nosebleed (Epistaxis)." This guideline uses research to advise doctors and other health care providers on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nosebleeds. The guideline includes recommendations that are explained in this summary. Recommendations may not apply to every patient but can be used to help patients ask questions and make decisions in their own care.

Severe Recurrent Epistaxis - The Main Symptom of Hereditary Haemorrhagic Teleangiectasia

Hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT), also known as Rendu-Osler-Weber syndrome, is of dominant autosomal inheritance. Pathologic changes of vascular walls cause recurrent episodes of bleeding from many organ systems. Recurrent epistaxis is the first and the most frequent symptom of HHT. The causal therapy is not known but there are many therapeutic procedures improving the overall condition.

We present a case of a 76-year-old man suffering from HHT, frequently hospitalized and treated for massive nose bleeding. In past a selective arterial embolization was performed thrice; nonetheless, the intensity and frequency of epistaxis remained unchanged. Anterior nasal package and electrocoagulation were performed repeatedly as the “first aid” treatment. In the article we also mention other therapeutic modalities for this diagnosis; unfortunately, their efficacy remains inadequate.

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.

Randomized controlled trial comparing Nd:YAG laser photocoagulation and bipolar electrocautery in the management of epistaxis

The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and degree of comfort of Nd:YAG laser photocoagulation compared to bipolar electrocautery in the management of epistaxis. Seventy-two consecutive patients with a history of epistaxis were randomly assigned to receive treatment in an outpatient setting consisting of either bipolar electrocautery (group 1) or Nd:YAG laser photocoagulation (group 2). The study was conducted in university-affiliated teaching hospital. Seventy-two consecutive patients who suffered from anterior epistaxis and presented to the Otolaryngology Department at the Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital, Fudan University, between June 2015 and August 2015. The following outcome measures were assessed: bleeding intensity, bleeding frequency 4 and 16 weeks after treatment (0 = no bleeding, 1 = reduced bleeding, 2 = the same, and 3 = worse), participant perception of discomfort during treatment (grade 0-10, where 10 is the worst pain), and therapy duration and complications. At 16 weeks, 91% of the laser patients versus 91% of the bipolar electrocautery patients had no reported bleeding. The outcome scores at 4 and 16 weeks after treatment showed no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.5 and P = 0.98, respectively; P > 0.05). The median pain levels experienced during the office laser and bipolar electrocautery procedures were 3.0 and 4.0, respectively, and the median durations of the laser and electrocautery therapies were 3.0 and 4.0, respectively. Neither groups had complications. It can be concluded that Nd:YAG laser photocoagulation and bipolar electrocautery are both effective in the treatment of epistaxis. These two therapies are recommended. As a whole, these two therapies, performed in an office setting, are timely, efficacious, and well tolerated in the treatment of epistaxis.