Epistaxis complicating treatment by anti-vitamin K and new oral anticoagulants

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.

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.

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.

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.

Management of epistaxis in patients on novel oral anticoagulation therapy

BACKGROUND

Individuals on anticoagulation therapy are at increased risk of bleeding, including epistaxis. There is a lack of available reversal agents for novel oral anticoagulation therapy.

OBJECTIVE

This paper reviews the current literature on epistaxis in the context of novel oral anticoagulation use, in order to recommend guidelines on management.

METHOD

A comprehensive search of published literature was conducted to identify all relevant articles published up to April 2019.

RESULTS

Patients on oral anticoagulation therapy are over-represented in individuals with epistaxis. Those on novel oral anticoagulation therapy were more likely to relapse compared to patients on classic oral anticoagulants or non-anticoagulated patients. Idarucizumab is an effective antidote for bleeding associated with dabigatran use. Recommendations for epistaxis management in patients on novel oral anticoagulation therapy are outlined.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians need to be aware of the potential severity of epistaxis and the increased likelihood of recurrence. High-quality studies are required to determine the efficacy and safety of andexanet alfa and ciraparantag, as well as non-specific reversal agents.