Initial assessment in the management of adult epistaxis: systematic review

Exploring knowledge of first aid in epistaxis-25 years on

BACKGROUND

Epistaxis is the most common acute disorder managed by ENT services. A 1998 survey (Strachan and England) demonstrated widespread ignorance of correct first aid amongst the public with only 11% of respondents applying correct first aid techniques. Here we repeated and expanded the 1998 study to investigate whether understanding of correct first aid in epistaxis amongst the public and emergency department staff has improved in the last 25 years.

METHODS

Posters with links to surveys were displayed in ED waiting rooms, anticoagulation clinics and ED staff rooms in multiple UK centres. Responders were asked three first aid questions: pinch position, head position, and plugging nostrils. A prospective audit was carried out in a single centre over four weeks recording the first aid was being applied at the point of ENT review for patients referred with epistaxis.

FINDINGS

129 members of public responded. 83% do not have correct first aid technique including 77% of those on anticoagulants or aspirin. 116 ED staff responded. 64% do not use correct first aid. Over four weeks 19 patients were referred to ENT with epistaxis and of these, nine were bleeding at the point of ENT review. Adequate first aid was not being applied in 56% of those cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the morbidity of epistaxis, and the simplicity of first aid steps, there is concerning lack of understanding amongst the public and ED staff. Education (particularly for staff and the anticoagulated) may reduce emergency attendance in epistaxis patients.

Risk factors of epistaxis in rural Denmark: a cross-sectional population-based survey of data from the Lolland-Falster health study

PURPOSE

Epistaxis is a common condition that affects about 60% of the population in their lifetime, with 6% needing medical attention. Little is known about the epidemiology and risk factors of epistaxis outside the health care system. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of epistaxis in a rural Danish population using data from the Lolland-Falster Health Study (LOFUS).

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey based on data from LOFUS, a household-based, prospective cohort study in the rural provincial area of Lolland-Falster, Denmark. We enrolled 10,065 participants (≥ 50 years) and collected data on demographics, comorbidities, medication, lifestyle factors, and laboratory parameters. Logistic regressions were used to test for correlations between epistaxis and different risk factors.

RESULTS

In total 5.3% of the participants had experienced epistaxis within the past 30 days, and 7.9% had sought medical attention for epistaxis at some point in their lives. We identified several factors that were significantly correlated with increased odds of epistaxis, such as male gender, age group 50-59 years, high BMI (> 25), allergy, diabetes, hypertension, atherosclerosis, angina, and anticoagulant treatment. Excellent or good self-reported health was correlated to significantly lower odds of epistaxis.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a comprehensive overview of the prevalence and risk factors of epistaxis outside the health care system. Our study suggests that preventive measures targeting these risk factors may reduce the incidence and severity of epistaxis in this population.

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.

Risk Factors and Management for Epistaxis in a Hospitalized Adult Sample

INTRODUCTION

Epistaxis is a common otolaryngologic problem that affects most of the general population. Common risk factors for epistaxis include nasal irritants, nasal/facial oxygen use, certain systemic conditions (e.g., hypertension and coagulopathies) and medication use (e.g., anticoagulants and intranasal medications). This study examined risk factors for and management of epistaxis in patients admitted for other medical conditions who developed an episode of epistaxis during their hospital admission.

METHODS

Patients were included in the study if they were older than 18, admitted for medical illnesses other than epistaxis and developed an episode of epistaxis during their admission during calendar year 2020 at the authors' institution's hospitals. Electronic health record data regarding sociodemographic characteristics, common risk factors (e.g. oxygen use, anticoagulant use, history of hypertension) and treatment for epistaxis (e.g. holding anticoagulation therapy, administration of oxymetazoline, nasal cautery, nasal packing) were extracted from each chart. Patients were split into otolaryngologic treatment versus no treatment groups and risk factors were compared between sample subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 143 sample patients were included, with most common reason for admission being cardiovascular related, 48 (33.6%). Most patients, 104 (72.7%), did not have a previous diagnosis of epistaxis, were positive for anticoagulant use, 106 (74.1%) and were positive for hypertension, 95 (66.4%). Oxygen use showed a significantly decreased risk for intervention (OR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.23-0.894; p = 0.028). Most patients required changes in medical management (e.g., holding anticoagulation or starting nasal saline sprays/emollients).

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate the common risk factors for epistaxis in patients admitted for other clinical diseases. Identifying at-risk patients for epistaxis at hospital admission can help to initiate measures to prevent epistaxis episodes. Future studies are needed to study epistaxis risk factors and identify effective preventative measures for epistaxis among hospital populations.

2021 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; First Aid Task Forces; and the COVID-19 Working Group

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

2021 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; First Aid Task Forces; and the COVID-19 Working Group

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

[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.

Anti-thrombotics and their impact on inpatient epistaxis management: a tertiary centre experience

Introduction

Epistaxis represents a massive burden upon NHS resources. Despite being an extremely common reason for emergency ENT admissions, there remains significant variation in its management. Although the evidence base is continually growing, there appears to be a lack of guidance towards managing anti-coagulants and anti-platelet medications and identifying patient-specific outcomes in this setting. Epistaxis has long been associated with a multitude of risk factors but none have shown consistent, direct correlation.

Materials and methods

We aimed to identify if the use of anti-thrombotic medication was associated with a longer length of hospital admission or conferred a higher requirement for nasal packing, re-packing, surgery or re-admission. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 100 consecutive adult patients admitted over a 6-month period. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS software.

Results

Sixty-five percent of patients were taking anti-thrombotic medication. The variability of admission INR values in those taking warfarin did not relate with any outcome measure. There was no statistical difference between patients taking anti-thrombotic medication and those who do not, with regards to our primary outcome measures. Re-admission rates within 28 days were found to be 13%, with anti-thrombotic medication use and pre-existing cardiovascular disease recognised as commonly encountered risk factors. Three percent of patients required surgical intervention. Eight percent of patients required re-packing, with a Rapid Rhino chosen in all instances.

Conclusion

The use of anti-thrombotic medication is not associated with increased morbidity or increased rate of complications. Anti-thrombotic usage and more than one medical co-morbidity increase the risk of re-admission within 28 days.

Analysis of Bleeding Site to Identify Associated Risk Factors of Intractable Epistaxis

Introduction

Intractable epistaxis refers to deep occult bleeding and uncontrolled persistent bleeding. Effective treatment can only be implemented if the bleeding site is quickly identified and the underlying disease controlled.

Objective

The relationship between the bleeding site and the pathogenic factors of intractable epistaxis was analyzed to further strengthen the prevention and treatment of intractable epistaxis by outpatient doctors, family doctors and otolaryngologists. Through accurate search and minimally invasive hemostasis, it helped optimize the treatment plan for intractable epistaxis.

Methods

This study retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 90 patients with intractable epistaxis who were admitted to hospital from January 2016 to December 2017. Chi-square test was used to analyze the relationship between intractable epistaxis site with underlying disease, gender and age.

Results

The distribution of intractable epistaxis was associated with hypertension (χ²=13.76, P=0.017). The incidence of hypertension was the highest in the olfactory sulcus of the middle turbinate region at about 60%. In addition, age was also identified as a factor that affects the distribution of intractable epistaxis (χ²=21.95, P=0.02). The incidence of intractable epistaxis on the vault of inferiornasal meatus region was highest (63%) in young patients. On the other hand, the olfactory sulcus of the middle turbinate region accounted for the highest incidence in the middle-aged and elderly group (66.7%). There was no obvious relation between the bleeding site of intractable epistaxis with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis.

Conclusion

The bleeding site of intractable epistaxis is related to hypertension and age. This may improve the identification of the site of intractable epistaxis for timely implementation of treatment and can further strengthen the prevention and treatment of intractable epistaxis in outpatients or family doctors.

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.

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.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Nosebleed (Epistaxis) Executive Summary

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 great 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 will focus on nosebleeds that commonly present to clinicians with 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 hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome (HHT) 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 working 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 upon 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 1 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 (HHT). (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.

Evaluation of the Relationship Between Blood Pressure Control and Epistaxis Recurrence After Achieving Effective Hemostasis in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Epistaxis is the most common cause of otorhinolaryngologic emergencies. There is a longstanding controversy regarding the relationship between epistaxis and hypertension (HTN), in terms of blood pressure (BP) control in the emergency department (ED) setting. The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between HTN, BP control, and recurrent epistaxis among patients initially admitted to the ED for epistaxis.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in the EDs of three different hospitals in Taiwan and included a total of 739 patients admitted for epistaxis.

RESULTS

Among ED patients with epistaxis, older age was significantly associated with a history of HTN, and a statistically significant difference in age was noted between groups classified according to the systolic BP/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) at triage. Patients with a history of HTN had higher BP values at triage than did patients without a history of HTN (SBP: 175.68 ± 32.30 mmHg vs. 148.00 ± 26.26 mmHg, DBP: 95.04 ± 20.98 mmHg vs. 83.30 ± 16.65 mmHg; p < 0.0001). Antihypertensive medications were more commonly administered to patients with a history of HTN (p < 0.0001) and in those patients with SBP/DBP: ≥ 140/≥ 90 mmHg at triage (p < 0.0001). Among patients receiving antihypertensive medications, reductions in SBP by the time of discharge were significantly greater in patients with a history of HTN and in patients with SBP/DBP: ≥ 160/≥ 100 mmHg at triage. ED revisits due to recurrent epistaxis within 72 hours were significantly associated with male sex, a positive history of HTN, level of GOT, observation for recurrent epistaxis at ED, and duration of recurrent bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

A positive history of HTN is related to recurrent epistaxis among ED patients. The effectiveness of administering antihypertensive agents before achieving hemostasis in patients admitted to the ED for epistaxis warrants further study.

Epistaxis and mortality

Background

Epistaxis is a common emergency presentation to ENT. The ‘Epistaxis 2016: national audit of management’ collected prospective data over a 30-day audit window in 113 centres. A 30-day all-cause mortality rate of 3.4 per cent was identified. This study examines in more detail the subgroup of patients who died during the audit period.

Methods

There were 985 eligible patients identified. Of these, 33 patients died within the audit period. World Health Organization bleeding score, Modified Early Warning System score, haemostasis time, source of referral, co-morbidities and cause of death were investigated from the dataset.

Results

Patients who died were more likely to come from a ward environment, have co-existing cardiovascular disease, diabetes or a bleeding diathesis, be on antithrombotic medication, or have received a blood transfusion. Patients did not die from exsanguination.

Conclusion

Epistaxis may be seen as a general marker of poor health and a poor prognostic sign.

Sinuses and Common Rhinologic Conditions

Some of the most common rhinologic disorders that may present to the primary care provider include disorders of hemostasis, such as epistaxis, or sinonasal inflammatory disorders, such as allergic rhinitis and acute or chronic rhinosinusitis. This article is written with the intent to review these common rhinologic conditions for primary care providers and to summarize symptoms, diagnostic testing, differential diagnosis, and management/treatment approaches.

The British Rhinological Society multidisciplinary consensus recommendations on the hospital management of epistaxis

Objective:

Epistaxis is a common ENT emergency in the UK; however, despite the high incidence, there are currently no nationally accepted guidelines for its management. This paper seeks to recommend evidence-based best practice for the hospital management of epistaxis in adults.

Methods:

Recommendations were developed using an Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (‘AGREE II’) framework. A multifaceted systematic review of the relevant literature was performed and a multidisciplinary consensus event held. Management recommendations were generated that linked the level of supporting evidence and a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (‘GRADE’) score explaining the strength of recommendation.

Recommendations:

Despite a paucity of high-level evidence, management recommendations were formed across five management domains (initial assessment, cautery, intranasal agents, haematological factors, and surgery and radiological intervention).

Conclusion:

These consensus recommendations combine a wide-ranging review of the relevant literature with established and rigorous methods of guideline generation. Given the lack of high-level evidence supporting the recommendations, an element of caution should be used when implementing these findings.

Intranasal cautery for the management of adult epistaxis: systematic review

Background:

Cauterisation techniques are commonly used and widely accepted for the management of epistaxis. This review assesses which methods of intranasal cautery should be endorsed as optimum treatment on the basis of benefits, risks, patient tolerance and economic assessment.

Method:

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

Results:

Eight studies were identified: seven prospective controlled trials and one randomised controlled trial. Pooling of data was possible from 3 studies, yielding a total of 830 patients. Significantly lower re-bleed rates were identified (p < 0.01) using electrocautery (14.5 per cent) when compared to chemical cautery (35.1 per cent). No evidence suggested that electrocautery was associated with more adverse events or discomfort. Limited evidence supported the use of a vasoconstrictor agent and operating microscope during the procedure. The included studies had considerable heterogeneity in terms of design and outcome measures.

Conclusion:

Consistent evidence suggests that electrocautery has higher success rates than chemical cautery, and is not associated with increased complications or patient discomfort. Lower quality evidence suggests that electrocautery reduces costs and duration of hospital stay.