Epistaxis as a marker for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 status - a prospective study

Environmental Risk Factors for Pediatric Epistaxis vary by Climate Zone

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Prior studies have provided variable results regarding environmental risk factors for epistaxis. These studies were conducted in varying climate zones, which may explain discrepancies in results. The objective of this study is to investigate correlations between season, temperature, and humidity on frequency of pediatric epistaxis across climate zones.

METHODS

Children seen in the outpatient setting for epistaxis were identified from the 2007-2010 IBM MarketScan database. Climate zones were assigned according to International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) classification, where temperature zones in the United States and territories were assigned on an ordinal scale from 1 (tropical) to 8 (subarctic), and humidity zones were categorized as moist, dry, or marine. The control population was a sample of all well-child visits matched by age and county.

RESULTS

We identified 184,846 unique children seen for epistaxis and 1,897,012 matched controls. Moderate temperature zones were associated with lower odds of epistaxis compared with the hottest and coldest zones. Humidity was associated inversely with epistaxis rates in moderate temperature zones but was not a significant predictor of epistaxis in climates with extreme heat. Additionally, summer was associated with lower odds of epistaxis compared to winter. Interestingly, however, there were significantly higher rates of cautery procedures during summer months, driven largely by increased procedures performed in clinic, as opposed to the operating room or emergency room.

CONCLUSIONS

Environmental risk factors for epistaxis vary by climate zone. The model presented reconciles prior reports and may allow for more personalized clinical management based on regional climate.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 134:1450-1456, 2024.

Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on hospital admissions for epistaxis in Germany

BACKGROUND

Reports of a decrease in hospital admissions during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown period have raised concerns about delayed or missed diagnoses and treatments for non-COVID-19-related illnesses.

AIM

To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic-induced lockdown and its end on hospital admissions of patients with epistaxis in Germany.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis based on the national database of the Hospital Remuneration System was used to compare hospital admissions during defined time periods between 2019 and 2022 with the lockdown period as the reference period. This was done on a weekly basis before, during, and after the lockdown. An Interrupted Time Series was used as the analysis method.

RESULTS

In our analysis, we included 26183 patients. The implementation of the lockdown led to a substantial reduction in the overall occurrence of epistaxis among patients (P < 0.05). This effect was most pronounced in the age group of 0-39 years, where the decrease was highly significant (P < 0.001). However, there was no change observed in patients aged 80 years and older (not significant). With the end of the lockdown period, the overall number of patients, especially in the youngest age group, increased abruptly and significantly (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

During the lockdown period, there was a decrease in hospital admissions for younger patients with epistaxis, possibly due to the fear of COVID-19 exposure. We also conclude that the severity of epistaxis was not underestimated in the elderly during the pandemic.

Otolaryngologic Presentations to Emergency Departments During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review of otolaryngologic presentation rates to emergency department settings before and after lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) for studies describing otolaryngologic presentations to emergency department and rapid access clinic settings both in the before-lockdown and after-lockdown periods. The start of after-lockdown period varied based on initiation of lockdown, ranging from March 1st to June 1st of 2020 across general emergency department studies.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies were included in this review. About 10 were general emergency departments, 3 were specifically pediatric emergency departments, and 1 study focused on the geriatric population (>65 years). A total of 13 790 patients were included, with 9446 in the before-lockdown period (68.5%) and 4344 in the after-lockdown period (31.5%). Meta-analysis of proportions for otolaryngologic presentations across general emergency departments was performed. Comparison of weighted proportions found significant differences between before-lockdown and after-lockdown presentation rates for infectious etiologies, tonsillitis specifically, foreign bodies, non-infectious airway issues, and epistaxis among these studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased proportions of various non-infectious presentations (eg, epistaxis, foreign bodies, and airway issues) following lockdown might be associated with proportional decreases in infectious pathologies, given decreased social contact to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Overall, it is important for otolaryngologists to recognize what presentations might more commonly be seen and require evaluation and potential intervention in light of a global pandemic.

[Recurrent, severe epistaxis in COVID-19 patients]

A 12-year-old female patient presented in the emergency room due to spontaneous, recurrent, fulminant epistaxis. As an additional finding a COVID-19-infection was noticed. Persisting hemorrhage led to increasing symptoms of shock. The current literature indicates a clear correlation of a SARS-CoV‑2-infection to spontaneous fulminant epistaxis, most likely due to a mucosal inflammation; however, other typical causes must be ruled out.

Anosmia and dysgeusia in SARS-CoV-2 infection: incidence and effects on COVID-19 severity and mortality, and the possible pathobiology mechanisms - a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The present study aimed to determine the global prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and to assess their association with severity and mortality of COVID-19. Moreover, this study aimed to discuss the possible pathobiological mechanisms of anosmia and dysgeusia in COVID-19. Methods: Available articles from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and preprint databases (MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and Researchsquare) were searched on November 10th, 2020. Data on the characteristics of the study (anosmia, dysgeusia, and COVID-19) were extracted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess research quality. Moreover, the pooled prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia were calculated, and the association between anosmia and dysgeusia in presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was assessed using the Z test. Results: Out of 32,142 COVID-19 patients from 107 studies, anosmia was reported in 12,038 patients with a prevalence of 38.2% (95% CI: 36.5%, 47.2%); whereas, dysgeusia was reported in 11,337 patients out of 30,901 COVID-19 patients from 101 studies, with prevalence of 36.6% (95% CI: 35.2%, 45.2%), worldwide. Furthermore, the prevalence of anosmia was 10.2-fold higher (OR: 10.21; 95% CI: 6.53, 15.96, p < 0.001) and that of dysgeusia was 8.6-fold higher (OR: 8.61; 95% CI: 5.26, 14.11, p < 0.001) in COVID-19 patients compared to those with other respiratory infections or COVID-19 like illness. To date, no study has assessed the association of anosmia and dysgeusia with severity and mortality of COVID-19. Conclusion: Anosmia and dysgeusia are prevalent in COVID-19 patients compared to those with the other non-COVID-19 respiratory infections. Several possible mechanisms have been hypothesized; however, future studies are warranted to elucidate the definitive mechanisms of anosmia and dysgeusia in COVID-19. Protocol registration: PROSPERO CRD42020223204.