Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in epistaxis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Maxillofacial haemorrhagic symptoms in emergency department patients: impact of antithrombotics

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of antithrombotics on the occurrence of maxillofacial haemorrhagic symptoms, and to determine if these haemorrhagic symptoms are predictors of maxillofacial fractures.

METHOD

A prospective cohort study was conducted of consecutive patients with maxillofacial trauma who had been admitted to the emergency department of four hospitals in the Netherlands. This study compared five haemorrhagic symptoms (peri-orbital haematoma, raccoon eyes, epistaxis, subconjunctival ecchymosis, and intra-oral haematoma) between patients not-using (NUA) and using (UA) of antithrombotics, and whether these maxillofacial haemorrhagic symptoms served as predictors for maxillofacial fractures.

RESULTS

Out of the 1005 patients, 812 (81%) belonged to the NUA group, and 193 (19%) to the UA group. UA patients exhibited higher frequencies of peri-orbital hematoma (54% vs. 39%, p < 0.001), raccoon eyes (10% vs. 5%, p = 0.01), and subconjunctival ecchymoses (16% vs. 7%, p < 0.001). In NUA, peri-orbital hematoma (OR = 2.5, p < 0.001), epistaxis (OR = 4.1, p < 0.001), subconjunctival ecchymosis (OR = 2.3, p = 0.02), and intra-oral hematoma (OR = 7.1, p < 0.001) were significant fracture predictors. Among UA, peri-orbital hematoma (OR = 2.2, p = 0.04), epistaxis (OR = 5.4, p < 0.001), subconjunctival ecchymosis (OR = 3.7, p = 0.008), and intra-oral hematoma (OR = 22.0, p < 0.001) were significant fracture predictors.

CONCLUSION

Maxillofacial haemorrhagic symptoms were observed more frequently in the UA group than in the NUA group. However, in both groups, maxillofacial haemorrhagic symptoms appear to be predictors of maxillofacial fractures. Caution is warranted in attributing these symptoms solely to antithrombotic use during emergency department assessments.