Epistaxis y dabigatrán, nuevo anticoagulante oral no antagonista de la vitamina K

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.

[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 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.

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.

Shorter hospital stays in epistaxis patients with atrial fibrillation when taking rivaroxaban or apixaban versus phenprocoumon

Patients taking oral anticoagulants (OACs) currently represent one-third of all patients treated for epistaxis and an upward trend is expected. New direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been on the market for approximately 10 years. DOACs are favoured over Vitamin K-Antagonists (VKAs) in the current guidelines. There are barely studies that investigate the impact of DOACs on patients with epistaxis. A retrospective study was performed analysing all patients who had stationary treatment for epistaxis from 01.01.2011 to 01.01.2018 in a tertiary care centre. In a total of 466 patients, 46.1% were on OACs. The main indication was atrial fibrillation (AF, 67.4%).The number of DOACs taken surpassed that of the VKAs during the past 2 years. The length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the phenprocoumon group (3 ± 0.2 days) in comparison to both the rivaroxaban (2.3 ± 0.1) and the apixaban (2.2 ± 0.1) groups (p = 0.005). Posterior epistaxis occurred more frequently in the phenprocoumon group (10.8%) than in the rivaroxaban (0%) and apixaban (0%) groups (p = 0.03). A correlation between CHA₂DS₂-VASc score (risk score for apoplexy in patients with AF, p = 0.01), HAS-BLED score (score for assessment of major bleeding in patients taking anticoagulants with AF, p = 0.006), and length of hospital stay (p = 0.002) with recurrence of epistaxis was found. Shorter hospital stays and exclusively anterior bleeding was noted in AF patients taking rivaroxaban and apixaban, whereas AF patients taking phenprocoumon stayed in hospital longer and had more posterior bleeding.

Management and outcome of epistaxis under direct oral anticoagulants: a comparison with warfarin

BACKGROUND

Epistaxis is one of the more common reasons for emergency room visits. The main risk factor for epistaxis is anticoagulant therapy. Until recently, the main culprit was oral intake of a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, which has a number of side effects. Even more recently, several direct oral anticoagulants, rivaroxaban and dabigatran, have been approved for use. We investigated the possible differences between treatment of epistaxis with direct oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary referral center in Germany. All patients who were admitted within a 1-year period were included. Patient files were used to obtain the information.

RESULTS

Overall, 677 patients were included in our study. Of these, 159 had been treated with vitamin K antagonists and 49 with direct oral anticoagulants. There were no significant differences in terms of age (p = 0.592), sex (p = 0.372), vital signs, bloodwork, or location of bleeding (p = 0.372). Management of epistaxis between the groups was also comparable (p = 0.399), with similar hospital admission rates (37.1% vs 24.5%; p = 0.145) and duration of stay (3.5 ± 2.1 days vs 3.8 ± 3.3 days; p = 0.650).

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence to suggest epistaxis is more severe or requires more invasive therapy in patients given direct oral anticoagulants. A significant proportion of patients on vitamin K antagonists were not within the target range for international normalized ratio, highlighting one of the main issues with oral anticoagulation by vitamin K antagonists.

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.

Haematological factors in the management of adult epistaxis: systematic review

Background:

The management of epistaxis requires an understanding of haematological factors that may complicate its treatment. This systematic review includes six distinct reviews examining the evidence supporting epistaxis-specific management strategies relating to warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants, heparin, antiplatelet agents, tranexamic acid and transfusion.

Method:

A systematic review of the literature was performed using a standardised methodology and search strategy.

Results:

Limited numbers of articles were identified in each systematic review, with level 1 evidence only regarding the use of tranexamic acid. No studies met the inclusion criteria within the heparin, direct oral anticoagulants or transfusion systematic reviews. Many studies were limited by small sample sizes and significant risk of bias.

Conclusion:

The management of major bleeding and transfusion practice is well documented in national guidance from multiple sources. The guidelines include advice on anticoagulants, antiplatelet agents and tranexamic acid. In the absence of more specific evidence, these guidelines should be applied in the management of epistaxis.

Initial assessment in the management of adult epistaxis: systematic review

Background:

The initial assessment of epistaxis patients commonly includes: first aid measures, observations, focused history taking, and clinical examinations and investigations. This systematic review aimed to identify evidence that informs how the initial assessment of these patients should be conducted.

Method:

A systematic review of the literature was performed using a standardised methodology and search strategy.

Results:

Seventeen articles were included. Factors identified were: co-morbidity, intrinsic patient factors, coagulation screening and ice pack use. Hypertension and anticoagulant use were demonstrated to adversely affect outcomes. Coagulation screening is useful in patients on anticoagulant medication. Four studies could not be accessed. Retrospective methodology and insufficient statistical analysis limit several studies.

Conclusion:

Sustained ambulatory hypertension, anticoagulant therapy and posterior bleeding may be associated with recurrent epistaxis, and should be recorded. Oral ice pack use may decrease severity and can be considered as first aid. Coagulation studies are appropriate for patients with a history of anticoagulant use or bleeding diatheses.