INTEGRATE (The National ENT Trainee Research Network). The British Rhinological Society multidisciplinary consensus recommendations on the hospital management of epistaxis

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.

2024 American Heart Association and American Red Cross Guidelines for First Aid

Codeveloped by the American Heart Association and the American Red Cross, these guidelines represent the first comprehensive update of first aid treatment recommendations since 2010. Incorporating the results of structured evidence reviews from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, these guidelines cover first aid treatment for critical and common medical, traumatic, environmental, and toxicological conditions. This update emphasizes the continuous evolution of evidence evaluation and the necessity of adapting educational strategies to local needs and diverse community demographics. Existing guidelines remain relevant unless specifically updated in this publication. Key topics that are new, are substantially revised, or have significant new literature include opioid overdose, bleeding control, open chest wounds, spinal motion restriction, hypothermia, frostbite, presyncope, anaphylaxis, snakebite, oxygen administration, and the use of pulse oximetry in first aid, with the inclusion of pediatric-specific guidance as warranted.

Epistaxis first-aid: a multi-center knowledge assessment study among medical workers

PURPOSE

To assess the knowledge and confidence level regarding the basic first-aid for treating epistaxis among medical staff, including nurses and physicians across various medical disciplines. The study focused three aspects of first aid management: location of digital pressure, head position and duration of pressure.

METHODS

The study involved 597 participants, categorized into five groups according to their specialties: emergency medicine, internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and community-based healthcare. A paper-based multiple-choice questionnaire assessed knowledge of managing epistaxis. Correct answers were determined from literature review and expert consensus.

RESULTS

Most medical staff showed poor knowledge regarding the preferred site for applying digital pressure in epistaxis management. For head position, pediatricians and internal medicine physicians were most accurate (79.4% and 64.8%, respectively, p < 0.01), and nurses from the emergency department outperformed nurses from other disciplines; internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and community-based healthcare (61.1%, 41.5%, 43.5%, 60%, 45.6%, respectively, p < 0.05). While most medical staff were unfamiliar with the recommended duration for applying pressure on the nose, pediatricians and community clinic physicians were most accurate (47.1% and 46.0%, respectively, p < 0.01), while ER physicians were least accurate (14.9%, p < 0.01). Interestingly, a negative correlation was found between years of work experience and reported confidence level in managing epistaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate a significant lack of knowledge concerning epistaxis first-aid among medical staff, particularly physicians in emergency departments. This finding highlights the pressing need for education and training to enhance healthcare workers' knowledge in managing epistaxis.

Comparison of side effects and patient perceptions towards Rapid Rhino and Merocel packs in epistaxis

OBJECTIVE

Non-dissolvable nasal packs (Rapid Rhino and Merocel) are widely used in secondary healthcare centres for the control of epistaxis, with some side effects.

METHODS

A prospective, observational cohort study was conducted of adults who required Rapid Rhino or Merocel packing for acute epistaxis management in a large healthcare centre between March 2020 and 2021. A validated modified version of the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test was used.

RESULTS

A total of 80 adults requiring non-dissolvable packs were recruited. Seventy per cent of patients had Rapid Rhino packs inserted. Embarrassment was greater in patients who used Rapid Rhino than Merocel. Merocel packs had a significantly higher mean pain score on removal compared to Rapid Rhino. There was no correlation between rebleed rate and type of nasal pack used.

CONCLUSION

Non-dissolvable Rapid Rhino and Merocel nasal packs have similar efficacy in controlling epistaxis. Rapid Rhino packs are more embarrassing for patients in comparison to Merocel packs, but are less painful to remove.

Use of tranexamic acid-soaked NasoPore® in the emergency department, to reduce epistaxis admissions

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a new emergency department (ED) intervention for the management of non-traumatic, anterior epistaxis in adult patients, aiming to reduce epistaxis admissions.

DESIGN

A new epistaxis pathway was introduced for use by ED practitioners. This was disseminated in ED through an educational campaign by the ear, nose and throat team. A tranexamic acid (500 mg/5 mL)-soaked NasoPore® packing step was introduced for epistaxis which did not terminate following 10 min of simple first aid. The pathway was utilised for adult patients presenting with non-traumatic, anterior epistaxis. Pre- and post-implementation periods were defined, and all adults attending ED with non-traumatic, anterior epistaxis were included. Pre- and post-implementation epistaxis treatment interventions, admission rates and re-attendance rates were recorded by retrospective audit and compared.

RESULTS

In the post-implementation group, epistaxis admissions were 51.7% (p < .05) lower than in the pre-implementation group, as a proportion of the total number attending ED with epistaxis during these periods.

CONCLUSIONS

The significant reduction in epistaxis admissions demonstrates that this ED intervention is beneficial for patient outcomes.

Historical use of silver nitrate for the management of epistaxis - evidence-based practice?

OBJECTIVE

Epistaxis is one of the most common emergencies presenting to the ENT service, and silver nitrate cautery is the mainstay of epistaxis treatment in most centres worldwide. This review aimed to ascertain the historical evidence behind current common practice.

METHOD

A review was conducted of historical published literature pertaining to epistaxis management.

RESULTS

Silver in medicine dates back to 4000 BC, with silver nitrate first being used in 69 BC. Modern medical use for epistaxis is documented in case reports over the last 200 years.

CONCLUSION

The precise origin and evidence-based practice of using silver nitrate for epistaxis is not well-established or understood. The mechanism of action is questionable; novel research of silver nitrate for this common ENT emergency presentation may be required.

Risk Factors for Severe Clinical Course in Epistaxis Patients

Purpose: Epistaxis is a common medical emergency that may require admission to the emergency department (ED) and treatment by an otolaryngologist. Currently, there are no widely accepted indications for hospitalization, and the decision is based on personal experience. Methods: A retrospective study of 1171 medical records of patients with epistaxis treated at our tertiary medical center ED from 2013 to 2018 with no age limit. The presence of recurrent epistaxis, a posterior source of bleeding, the need for hospitalization, the need for blood transfusion, or surgical intervention defined severe clinical course. Results: The 1171 admissions included 230 recurrent admissions for a total of 941 patients (60% males) who were treated by an otolaryngologist. The average age was 57.6 in the adult population (>15) and 6.6 in the pediatric population (≤15). Of all patients, 39% had hypertension; 39% took antiplatelet/anticoagulation therapy; 63% came during winter-a significant risk factor; 34 (2.9%) had reduced hemoglobin levels of >1gr%, but only 7 received a blood transfusion; 131 (11%) were hospitalized, and 21 (1.8%) required surgical control of the bleeding. Age (OR 1.02; CI 1.01-1.023), male sex (OR 2.07; CI 1.59-2.69), hypertension (OR 1.76; CI 1.27-2.45), and antiplatelet/anticoagulation therapy (OR 2.53; CI 1.93-3.33, OR 1.65; CI 1.11-2.44, respectively), were significantly correlated with severe clinical course. Conclusion: Epistaxis is significantly more common and severe in older male patients with hypertension or antiplatelet/anticoagulation therapy. However, few need a blood transfusion or surgical intervention. In borderline cases with no definitive indication for hospitalization, we suggest adopting these factors as indications for hospitalization due to their marked influence on the clinical course. Routine coagulation tests are indicated in patients treated with warfarin or combined antiplatelet + anticoagulation therapy.

Where should epistaxis education be focused? A comparative study between the public and healthcare workers on knowledge of first aid management methods of epistaxis

BACKGROUND

Epistaxis can be life-threatening. Simple first aid management can stem bleeding. This study compared knowledge of first aid management methods of epistaxis between the general public and healthcare workers.

METHOD

A cross-sectional study of 100 healthcare workers and 103 adult members of the public was conducted at a large London teaching hospital. Respondents completed a survey assessing knowledge on nasal pinching site, head tilt and appropriate adjunct treatment use for first aid management of epistaxis.

RESULTS

Twenty-four per cent and 68 per cent of healthcare workers compared with 25.2 per cent and 37.9 per cent of the public answered correctly on nasal pinching position and head tilt position, respectively, with a statistical difference for head tilt position. Two per cent, 2 per cent and 24 per cent of healthcare workers mentioned ice use on the nose, ice use in the mouth or ice use but not site, respectively, compared with 0 per cent, 0 per cent and 4.9 per cent of the public, with a statistical difference for ice without site.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare workers and the public lack knowledge on first aid management of epistaxis. Improved education on first aid management is required, targeting healthcare workers and the public.

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.

Refractory epistaxis and Stamm's S-point

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ethmoidal arteries are gaining increasing importance as the main source of severe refractory epistaxis. In this direction, Stamm's S-point, a specific bleeding point in the upper nasal septum, around the projection of the axilla of middle turbinate, posterior to the septal body, was recently described. The aim of this review was to present recent data on S-point and its role in severe refractory epistaxis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Due to the hidden location posterior to the septal body, S-point is not easily identified by anterior rhinoscopy. When systematic endoscopic assessment was performed in severe epistaxis to search for the precise bleeding point, S-point was clearly the most identified (23.7-28.3%). Electrocauterization of bleeding point had high success rates (91.5-100%) and decreased the risk of recurrence bleeding.

SUMMARY

Stamm's S-point plays an important role in severe refractory epistaxis, due to its frequency and stability. However, this specific bleeding point could not be easily identified, so systematic endoscopic assessment should be performed. Recent data has shifted the paradigm of the main source of severe epistaxis from the sphenopalatine artery to ethmoidal arteries and presented high success rates for electrocauterization of bleeding points as single treatment of severe epistaxis.

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

OBJECTIVE

Epistaxis is the most common otolaryngological emergency and up to one third of patients in treated on an inpatient basis take oral anticoagulants (OAC). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), an OAC subgroup, have been on the market since 2010 and are being increasingly prescribed due to the cardiological and haematological guidelines that favour them over vitamin K antagonists (VKA), the older of the OAC subgroups. The present study aims to investigate which subgroup of epistaxis patients taking OACs has a more favourable outcome.

DESIGN/SETTING

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA 2020 statement using the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Continuous data were analysed and standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated according to Hedges' g. Dichotomous data were analysed, and the Mantel-Haenszel method was applied to establish the odds ratio (OR). Heterogeneity was assessed according to the I²  statistics.

MAIN OUTCOME/RESULTS

A total of eight reports covering 1390 patients were included in the final synthesis. The pooled analysis demonstrated significantly shorter hospital stays in the DOAC group (SMD = -0.22, 95% CI-0.42 to -0.02, p = .03) and a significantly higher rate of posterior bleeding in the VKA group (OR = .39, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68, p = .001). No statistically significant differences with regard to recurrence rates, admission rates, the need for transfusion or surgical intervention (p = .57, .12, .57 and .38 respectively) were found.

CONCLUSION

According to this meta-analysis, epistaxis patients taking DOACs have a more favourable outcome than patients taking VKAs.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

An International Survey on the pragmatic management of epistaxis

Epistaxis is one of the most common ear, nose and throat emergencies. The management of epistaxis has evolved significantly in recent years, including the use of nasal cautery and packs. However, a correct treatment requires the knowledge of nasal anatomy, potential risks, and complications of treatment. Epistaxis is often a simple and readily treatable condition, even though a significant bleed may have potentially severe consequences. At present, there are very few guidelines concerning this topic. The current Survey explored the pragmatic approach in managing epistaxis. A questionnaire, including 7 practical questions has been used. The current International Survey on epistaxis management reported a relevant prevalence (21.7%), mainly during childhood and senescence, an important hospitalization rate (11.8%), the common use of anterior packing and electrocoagulation, and the popular prescription of a vitamin supplement and intranasal creams.

Plain Language Summary: Nosebleed (Epistaxis)

This plain language summary explains nosebleeds, also known as epistaxis (pronounced ep-ih-stak-sis), to patients. The summary applies to any individual aged 3 years and older with a nosebleed or history of nosebleed who needs medical treatment or wants medical advice. It is based on the 2020 "Clinical Practice Guideline: Nosebleed (Epistaxis)." This guideline uses research to advise doctors and other health care providers on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nosebleeds. The guideline includes recommendations that are explained in this summary. Recommendations may not apply to every patient but can be used to help patients ask questions and make decisions in their own care.

Case Report: Massive epistaxis from juvenile angiofibroma in an adolescent with severe haemophilia A

Epistaxis may be profuse in individuals with normal bleeding parameters, but in an individual with haemophilia, it may be life-threatening. It is even more dangerous when epistaxis is caused by an undetected concomitant juvenile angiofibroma, and only one such case has been reported in the English literature. We report another case, of an 18-year-old Filipino adolescent with severe haemophilia A who was referred for repeated massive epistaxis. The epistaxis had been attributed to his haemophilia and managed with nasal packing, multiple blood transfusions and Factor VIII administration. After two years of unsuccessful management, nasal endoscopy was performed for the first time, revealing an intranasal mass. Imaging showed a right intranasal vascular tumour supplied mainly by the right sphenopalatine artery. He subsequently underwent preoperative embolization and endoscopic excision of the tumour with Factor VIII transfused pre-, intra-, and post-operatively, and recombinant Factor VII added post-operatively. Final histopathology was consistent with juvenile angiofibroma. There has been no nasal obstruction or recurrence of epistaxis seven years since the surgery. Clinicians should be more meticulous in assessing epistaxis in any patient with a bleeding disorder and investigate more subtle symptoms such as nasal obstruction. Verification of the source by direct visualization and ancillary diagnostic techniques (such as imaging) when indicated should be the standard of care for all patients presenting with epistaxis, whether or not a concomitant bleeding disorder exists. A high index of suspicion for juvenile angiofibroma should be maintained in adolescent males with epistaxis and nasal obstruction.

ENT Quality Improvement Program as a tool to improve the collection of morbidity and mortality data: a multisite audit carried out over 6 months

Objective

This project aims to assess the role of a standardised process of data collection to improve morbidity and mortality data across the region.

Design

Six hospitals within the North West (UK) were recruited and adopted the ENT Quality Improvement Program (QIP) into their daily practice. Monthly anonymous data were sent back to the reviewer for trend analysis.

Outcome measures

Four outcome measures were defined: (1) number of cases recorded within the region each month; (2) assessment of the severity of cases and trends; (3) assessment of action plans reviewing any changes in practice made as a result of using this tool; (4) long-term use of the tool and qualitative feedback from units.

Results

162 patients over the 6 months were included with 180 case discussions. 170 of these were morbidities and 10 were mortalities. Mortality was more frequent in patients with a diagnosis of head and neck cancer. Of the 162 patients, 133 encountered postoperative complications. Post-tonsillectomy (62/133 47%) and post-thyroid surgery (19/133 14%) complications were the most frequently encountered. 66% of the complications were low grade with 18% requiring management under general anaesthetic. Actions plans included four policy reviews with the introduction of three new policies. All sites found the tool user-friendly and are continuing to use it beyond the data collection period.

Conclusions

The ENT QIP has been found to be a simple, user-friendly tool which has improved the quality of data over the six sites and resulted in improvements in practice. Implementation of the tool allows clinicians to critically appraise their practice and to reflect as well as to demonstrate how complications have resulted in change.

Tranexamic acid for patients with nasal haemorrhage (epistaxis)

BACKGROUND

Epistaxis (nosebleed) most commonly affects children and the elderly. The majority of episodes are managed at home with simple measures. In more severe cases medical intervention is required to either cauterise the bleeding vessel, or to pack the nose with various materials. Tranexamic acid is used in a number of clinical settings to stop bleeding by preventing clot breakdown (fibrinolysis). It may have a role in the management of epistaxis as an adjunct to standard treatments, reducing the need for further intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of tranexamic acid (oral, intravenous or topical) compared with placebo, no additional intervention or any other haemostatic agent in the management of patients with epistaxis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register (via CRS Web); Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via CRS Web); PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 29 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of tranexamic acid (in addition to usual care) compared with usual care plus placebo, usual care alone or usual care plus any other haemostatic agent, to control epistaxis in adults or children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were control of epistaxis: re-bleeding (as measured by the proportion of patients re-bleeding within a period of up to 10 days) and significant adverse effects (seizures, thromboembolic events). Secondary outcomes were control of epistaxis as measured by the time to stop initial bleeding (the proportion of patients whose bleeding is controlled within a period of up to 30 minutes); severity of re-bleeding (as measured by (a) the proportion of patients requiring any further intervention and (b) the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion); length of hospital stay and other adverse effects. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs (692 participants). The overall risk of bias in the studies was low. Two studies assessed oral administration of tranexamic acid, given regularly over several days, and compared it to placebo. In the other four studies, a single application of topical tranexamic acid was compared with placebo (one study) and a combination of epinephrine and lidocaine or phenylephrine (three studies). All participants were adults.Tranexamic acid versus placeboFor our primary outcome, control of epistaxis: re-bleeding (proportion re-bleeding within 10 days), we were able to pool data from three studies. The pooled result demonstrated a benefit of tranexamic acid compared to placebo, the risk of re-bleeding reducing from 67% to 47% (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.90; three studies; 225 participants; moderate-quality evidence).When we compared the effects of oral and topical tranexamic acid separately the risk of re-bleeding with oral tranexamic acid reduced from 69% to 49%, RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.96; two studies, 157 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and with topical tranexamic acid it reduced from 66% to 43%, RR 0.66 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.05; single study, 68 participants). We rated the quality of evidence provided by the single study as low, therefore it is uncertain whether topical tranexamic acid is effective in stopping bleeding in the 10-day period after a single application.No study specifically sought to identify and report our primary outcome: significant adverse effects (i.e. seizures, thromboembolic events).The secondary outcome time to stop initial bleeding (proportion with bleeding controlled within 30 minutes) was measured in one study using topical tranexamic acid and there was no evidence of a difference at 30 minutes (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.11; 68 participants; low-quality evidence).No studies reported the proportion of patients requiring any further intervention (e.g. repacking, surgery, embolisation).One study of oral tranexamic acid reported the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion and found no difference between groups: 5/45 (11%) versus 6/44 (14%) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.48; 89 participants; low-quality evidence).Two studies reported hospital length of stay. One study reported a significantly shorter stay in the oral tranexamic acid group (mean difference (MD) -1.60 days, 95% CI -2.49 to -0.71; 68 participants). The other study found no evidence of a difference between the groups.Tranexamic acid versus other haemostatic agentsWhen we pooled the data from three studies the proportion of patients whose bleeding stopped within 10 minutes was significantly higher in the topical tranexamic acid group compared to the group receiving another haemostatic agent (70% versus 30%: RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.90 to 2.92; 460 participants) (moderate-quality evidence).Adverse effects across all studiesFive studies recorded 'adverse effects' in a general way. None found any difference between the groups in the occurrence of minor adverse effects (e.g. mild nausea and diarrhoea, 'bad taste' of gel). In one study a patient developed a superficial thrombophlebitis of both legs following discharge, however it is not reported in which group this occurred. No "other serious adverse effect" was reported in any study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-quality evidence that there is probably a reduction in the risk of re-bleeding with the use of either oral or topical tranexamic acid in addition to usual care in adult patients with epistaxis, compared to placebo with usual care. However, the quality of evidence relating solely to topical tranexamic acid was low (one study only), so we are uncertain whether or not topical tranexamic acid is effective in stopping bleeding in the 10-day period after a single application. We found moderate-quality evidence that topical tranexamic acid is probably better than other topical agents in stopping bleeding in the first 10 minutes.There have been only three RCTs on this subject since 1995. Since then there have been significant changes in nasal cauterisation and packing techniques (for example, techniques including nasal endoscopy and more invasive approaches such as endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation). New trials would inform us about the effectiveness of tranexamic acid in light of these developments.

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.

Epistaxis in the cirrhotic patient: A complication to be considered

INTRODUCTION

Epistaxis in cirrhotic patients is a common issue. However, the literature published to date is very scarce.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective case series of patients with cirrhosis who presented with a significant epistaxis, between 2006 and 2016.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 39 cirrhotic patients with a mean age of 61.4 (±14) years, 75% of which were males. The main comorbidities were hypertension (33%) and diabetes mellitus (26%). Seven (18%) patients were taking antiplatelet drugs and 3 (8%) anticoagulants. One third of patients had a previous history of epistaxis and 6 had a previous ENT pathology. The main aetiological factor of cirrhosis was alcohol in 46% of cases, with 15 (38%) patients presenting with Child A, 12 (31%) Child B and 12 (31%) Child C class. The median MELD score upon admission was 16 [12-21]. Thirty-five (97%) patients had portal hypertension. At admission, the median platelet count was 89,000 [60,000-163,000] and mean INR was 1.52 (±0.37). Clinically, epistaxis presented as haematemesis or melaena in 8 (21%) patients, simulating gastrointestinal bleeding due to swallowing of blood. In 10 (26%) patients, epistaxis was considered as the probable trigger of an episode of hepatic encephalopathy. Two patients required ICU admission due to bleeding and 8 (21%) died during hospitalisation due to causes not directly related to epistaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Epistaxis is a complication to be taken into account in cirrhotic patients, as it can act as an encephalopathy trigger or simulate an episode of gastrointestinal bleeding.