Dissolvable intranasal haemostatic agents for acute epistaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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 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.

Coronavirus disease 2019: changing the future of emergency epistaxis management

Background

Acute epistaxis can be a life-threatening airway emergency, requiring in-patient admission. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic placed significant strain on hospital resources, and management has shifted towards an out-patient-centred approach.

Methods

A five-month single-centre retrospective study was undertaken of all epistaxis patients managed by the ENT department. A pre-coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic group was managed with pre-existing guidelines, compared to new guidelines for the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic group. A telephone survey was performed on out-patients with non-dissolvable packs to assess patient comfort and satisfaction.

Results

A total of 142 patients were seen. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic group had significantly more patients aged over 65 years (p = 0.004), an increased use of absorbable dressings and local haemostatic agents (Nasopore and Surgiflo), and fewer admissions (all p < 0.0005). Rates of re-presentation and morbidity, and length of hospital stay were similar. The telephone survey revealed out-patient management to be efficacious and feasible.

Conclusion

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has shifted epistaxis management towards local haemostatic agents and out-patient management; this approach is as safe and effective as previously well-established regimens.