The use of FloSeal haemostatic sealant in the management of epistaxis: a prospective clinical study and literature review

Predictors for hemostatic thrombin-gelatin matrix usage in spine surgery: a multicenter observational study

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

Thrombin-gelatin matrix (TGM) is a rapid and potent hemostatic agent, but it has some limitations, including the cost and its preparation time. The purpose of this study was to investigate the current trend in the use of TGM and to identify the predictors for TGM usage in order to ensure its proper use and optimized resource allocation.

METHODS

A total of 5520 patients who underwent spine surgery in a multicenter study group within a year were included in the study. The demographic factors and the surgical factors including spinal levels operated, emergency surgery, reoperation, approach, durotomy, instrumented fixation, interbody fusion, osteotomy, and microendoscopy-assistance were investigated. TGM usage and whether it was routine or unplanned use for uncontrolled bleeding were also checked. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors for unplanned use of TGM.

RESULTS

Intraoperative TGM was used in 1934 cases (35.0%), among which 714 were unplanned (12.9%). Predictors of unplanned TGM use were female gender (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.43, p = 0.03), ASA grade ≥ 2 (OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.04-1.72, p = 0.02), cervical spine (OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.24-1.94, p < 0.001), tumor (OR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.34-3.03, p < 0.001), posterior approach (OR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.26-2.18, p < 0.001), durotomy (OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.24-2.20, p < 0.001), instrumentation (OR: 1.30, 1.03-1.63, p = 0.02), osteotomy (OR: 5.00, 2.76-9.05, p < 0.001), and microendoscopy (OR: 2.24, 1.84-2.73, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the predictors for unplanned TGM use have been previously reported as risk factors for intraoperative massive hemorrhaging and blood transfusion. However, other newly revealed factors can be predictors of bleeding that is technically challenging to control. While routine usage of TGM in these cases will require further justification, these novel findings are valuable for implementing preoperative precautions and optimizing resource allocation.

Ambulatory management of common ENT emergencies - what's the evidence?

OBJECTIVES

The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 has necessitated changes to 'usual' ways of practice in otolaryngology, with a view towards out-patient or ambulatory management of appropriate conditions. This paper reviews the available evidence for out-patient management of three of the most common causes for emergency referral to the otolaryngology team: tonsillitis, peri-tonsillar abscess and epistaxis.

METHODS

A literature review was performed, searching all available online databases and resources. The Medical Subject Headings 'tonsillitis', 'pharyngotonsillitis', 'quinsy', 'peritonsillar abscess' and 'epistaxis' were used. Papers discussing out-patient management were reviewed by the authors.

RESULTS

Out-patient and ambulatory pathways for tonsillitis and peritonsillar abscess are well described for patients meeting appropriate criteria. Safe discharge of select patients is safe and should be encouraged in the current clinical climate. Safe discharge of patients with epistaxis who have bleeding controlled is also well described.

CONCLUSION

In select cases, tonsillitis, quinsy and epistaxis patients can be safely managed out of hospital, with low re-admission rates.

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

INTRODUCTION

Nasal packing is the mainstay of epistaxis management; however, packs cause patient discomfort and can lead to hospital admission. Absorbable haemostats provide clotting factors or act as a substrate to stimulate clotting and represent a potential treatment alternative. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the efficacy of topical haemostats in the management of epistaxis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of 7 databases was performed. Only eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included. The primary outcome was short-term haemostatic success (<7 days). Secondary outcomes included long-term haemostatic control (no rebleeding 7-30 days), patient discomfort and adverse effects. Meta-analysis was performed where possible.

RESULTS

Of 2249 records identified, 12 were included in the qualitative synthesis and 4 RCTs were included in meta-analysis. The following haemostats were reported: gelatin-thrombin matrix (n = 8), aerosolised/gel tranexamic acid (n = 1), cellulose agents (n = 2) and fibrin sealants (n = 1). Studies involving tranexamic acid on removable delivery devices (eg, pledgets) were excluded. There was heterogeneity in outcome measures and inclusion criteria (coagulopathies/anticoagulants were excluded in 3 RCTs and 2 observational studies). The short-term haemostatic success varied between studies (13.9% to 100%). No significant post-procedural complications were reported. The meta-analysis favoured absorbable haemostatic agent versus packing (risk ratio 1.20; 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.37; P = .007). The risk of bias across all studies was moderate to high.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests haemostatic agents are effective at managing acute epistaxis when compared with nasal packing. More data are required before recommendations can be made regarding management in patients on anticoagulants.

Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial evaluating the performance of a novel combination powder vs hemostatic matrix in cardiothoracic operations

Aim

This trial compared the hemostatic performance of a novel combination powder (CP) to a control hemostatic matrix (HM) in cardiothoracic operations.

Methods

Patients meeting eligibility criteria were enrolled after providing informed consent. Subjects were randomized intraoperatively to receive CP (HEMOBLAST Bellows; Biom'up, France) or HM (FLOSEAL Hemostatic Matrix; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Hayward, CA). Bleeding was assessed using a clinically validated, quantitative bleeding severity scale. The primary endpoint was total time to hemostasis (TTTH), from the start of device preparation, as an indicator of when a surgeon asks for a surgical hemostat until hemostasis was achieved. TTTH at 3 minutes was utilized for the primary analysis, while TTTH at 5 minutes was considered as a secondary endpoint.

Results

A total of 105 subjects were enrolled across four institutions. The primary efficacy endpoint for the superiority of CP relative to HM for success at achieving hemostasis within 3 minutes was met, with 64.2% of the CP group achieving hemostasis compared with 9.6% of the HM group, a difference of 54.54% (37.4%‐71.6%; P < .001 for superiority). The secondary efficacy endpoint was also met, with 92.5% of the CP group achieving hemostasis at 5 minutes versus 44.2% in the HM group, a difference of 48.2% (31.1%‐65.4%; P < .001 for noninferiority). There were no device‐related adverse events.

Conclusions

In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, comparison of CP to HM revealed CP superiority and noninferiority for TTTH at 3 and 5 minutes, respectively.

Use of a gelatin-thrombin hemostatic matrix in obstetrics and gynecological surgery

Gelatin-thrombin matrix (GTM) is a hemostatic sealant consisting of bovine-derived gelatin matrix and human-derived thrombin, combining both mechanical and active mechanisms to achieve hemostasis. It was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1999. GTM has been used by several surgical specialties; however, it is a possibly an under-used tool in obstetrics and gynecology. A limited number of studies have been performed on its use during laparoscopic endometrioma excision and myomectomy. It may prove useful in endometrioma excision in reproductive aged women because it is likely to harm ovarian reserve less than electrocautery; however, this conclusion needs to be validated. The only study on GTM use in myomectomy included 50 women randomized into GTM and control groups, and showed decreased blood loss and shorter hospital stays in the GTM group. In gynecologic oncology, it was successfully used to reduce lymphocele cases in a cohort study. GTM has been used successfully in obstetrics in a handful of cases of uncontrolled bleeding from caesarean scar, placental site, ectopic pregnancy, rectovaginal hematoma, and venous plexus over the vaginal vault after emergency postpartum hysterectomy. Risk of viral transmission is a major concern about GTM, yet there are no reports on disease transmission with GTM use to date. Rare but serious adverse effects and complications have been reported such as fatal or near-fatal thromboembolism and small bowel obstruction. Although GTM is mostly a safe product, it is still not free of complications and risks. In conclusion, although routine use of GTM cannot be recommended due to concerns about its safety, cost, and availability, it may prove useful when conventional hemostatic methods such as suturing and electrocauterization fail or are not appropriate.