A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Epistaxis.

Epistaxis, commonly known as nasal bleeding, ranks among the most prevalent emergencies encountered in otorhinolaryngology. The etiology of epistaxis is multifaceted, arising from both local and systemic factors. In Saudi Arabia, a country with a relatively high prevalence of epistaxis, understanding the level of awareness and attitudes toward first aid management of epistaxis is of paramount importance. This systematic review aims to bridge this knowledge gap by evaluating the awareness of and attitudes toward epistaxis first aid in Saudi Arabia. This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive electronic search was executed across PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases, encompassing studies published between January 2015 and July 2023. The study included exclusively cross-sectional studies, assessing awareness and attitude toward epistaxis first aid in Saudi Arabia across all populations and studies in English. The 17 selected studies were all published after October 2017, with three published in the year of this systematic review (2023). Sample sizes exhibited substantial variability, ranging from 57 to 2,441 individuals. Despite widespread awareness of epistaxis, the general population often disregards it as a minor health issue. This discrepancy highlights the importance of addressing epistaxis seriously, given the potential for severe bleeding as a medical emergency. The review of 17 studies revealed significant variations in epistaxis awareness levels, influenced by factors such as age, gender, and varying sample sizes. Notably, higher awareness levels were observed in studies involving the general Saudi population and those employing self-administered questionnaires. The average awareness and knowledge of epistaxis and its management among Saudi residents were moderate, with an estimated awareness level of 63%. A large-scale epidemiological survey, considering sociodemographic factors, is recommended to provide a more comprehensive understanding of epistaxis awareness.

Atherosclerosis of the iliac arteries for the prediction of erectile dysfunction and epistaxis in men undergoing abdominal CT scan.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the association between erectile dysfunction (ED) as well as epistaxis (ES) in relation to the extent of iliac atherosclerosis. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, all consecutive male patients treated at our institution from 01/2016 to 12/2020 undergoing abdominal CT scan were evaluated. Patients (n = 1272) were invited by mail to participate in the study in returning two questionnaires for the evaluation of ED (IIEF-5) and ES. Patients who returned filled-in questionnaires within a 3-month deadline were included in the study. The extent of atherosclerosis in the common iliac artery (CIA) and the internal iliac artery (IIA) was assessed by calcium scoring on unenhanced CT. Stratification of results was performed according to reported IIEF-5 scores and consequential ED groups. RESULTS: In total, 437 patients (34.4% of contacted) met the inclusion criteria. Forty-two patients did not fulfill predefined age requirements (< 75 years) and 120 patients had to be excluded as calcium scoring on nonenhanced CT was not feasible. Finally, 275 patients were included in the analysis and stratified into groups of "no-mild" (n = 146) and "moderate-severe" (n = 129) ED. The calcium score (r=-0.28, p < 0.001) and the number of atherosclerotic lesions (r=-0.32, p < 0.001) in the CIA + IIA showed a significant negative correlation to the IIEF-5 score, respectively. Patients differed significantly in CIA + IIA calcium score (difference: 167.4, p < 0.001) and number of atherosclerotic lesions (difference: 5.00, p < 0.001) when belonging to the "no-mild" vs. "moderate-severe" ED group, respectively. A multivariable regression model, after adjusting for relevant baseline characteristics, showed that the number of atherosclerotic CIA + IIA lesions was an independent predictor of ED (OR = 1.05, p = 0.036), whereas CIA + IIA calcium score was not (OR = 1.00031, p = 0.20). No relevant correlation was found between ES episodes and IIEF-5 scores (r=-0.069, p = 0.25), CIA + IIA calcium score (r=-0.10, p = 0.87) or number of atherosclerotic CIA + IIA lesions (r=-0.032, p = 0.60), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The number of atherosclerotic lesions in the iliac arteries on nonenhanced abdominal CT scans is associated with the severity of ED. This may be used to identify subclinical cardiovascular disease and to quantify the risk for cardiovascular hazards in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: BASEC-Nr. 2020 - 01637.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of First Aid for Epistaxis Among the General Population in the Jazan Region of Saudi Arabia.

Background Epistaxis, or nosebleeds, is a widespread medical condition that can be effectively managed with appropriate first aid. Understanding the general public's knowledge and practices about this is crucial. Objectives This study sought to evaluate the awareness and practice regarding first aid for epistaxis within the general population of the Jazan region in Saudi Arabia. Methods A cross-sectional survey was administered from April through June 2023, using a questionnaire that covered sociodemographic factors, knowledge of epistaxis, first aid practices for epistaxis, and any previous training received. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY), with chi-square tests to evaluate the variables' associations. Results The questionnaire was completed by 622 participants, predominantly females, Saudis, and individuals from the age group of 18 to 25 years. It was found that 60% of the participants had experienced epistaxis, but only 52% had received prior first aid training. Although the majority (91.8%) accurately defined epistaxis, a mere 40.8% correctly identified all the steps for first aid management of epistaxis. There was a notable insufficiency in understanding the causes, risk factors, and appropriate first aid steps. Participants' knowledge was evenly split, with approximately half exhibiting low knowledge (49.70%) and the remainder showing high knowledge (50.30%). Certain sociodemographic factors such as older age (p=0.028), Saudi nationality (p=0.045), and higher education (p=0.001) were linked with more experiences of epistaxis. Conversely, younger age (p=0.002), female gender (p=0.036), single status (p=0.001), prior experience with epistaxis (p=0.001), and higher overall knowledge (p=0.001) were associated with a higher likelihood of having received first aid training. Conclusions The study reveals significant gaps in the knowledge and practices of first aid for epistaxis among the general population in the Jazan region. Public awareness campaigns and educational programs are urgently needed, particularly for specific groups. Enhancing first aid knowledge could help alleviate the impacts of epistaxis. Further research is required to develop effective educational interventions.

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.

Multicenter Epidemiological Study of Nosebleeds Requiring Hospitalization.

Epistaxis is a common presenting symptom either emergency condition or ambulatory in Otorhinolaryngology, affecting people of all ages. A multicentric retrospective descriptive study of 380 patients who were hospitalized with epistaxis over a 3.8 year period was carried out. Data collected was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 and illustrated using Microsoft Office/Word 2016. The current study showed that male adults after 60 years old are most affected by nasal bleeding. More than half of hospitalized patients have severe epistaxis at the time of hospitalization. However, further studies are necessary to be done in order to fully elucidate the epidemiology of nosebleeds requiring hospitalization.

Etiological Profile of Epistaxis: Pre-Pandemic Versus Pandemic.

Nosebleed or epistaxis is one of the most common forms of presenting an emergency in the ENT field. Since March 11, 2020, the World Health Organisation has proclaimed COVID-19 a global pandemic, and the world has been closed down. The main objective of the study is to analyse and compare the dynamics of epistaxis aetiology among the cases that required hospitalisation in the pre-pandemic period and the period of the COVID 19 pandemic. The study is multicenter retrospective from October 2018 to May 2022, including 380 cases of hospitalised epistaxis, with the mention that March 2020 is considered the beginning of the pandemic period. 60.8% of the patients enrolled in the study in the pre-pandemic period (60.8%) and 39.2% in the pandemic period. Differences between groups were not statistically significant between study entries (pre-pandemic vs. pandemic) and age (p=0.331), gender (p=0.916) or existence of local causes for epistaxis (p=0.895). Patients with general causes for epistaxis were more frequently enrolled in the pandemic period, while patients without general causes for epistaxis were more frequently enrolled in the pre-pandemic period. Patients with a hospitalisation period of more than 5 days were more frequently enrolled in the pre-pandemic period while patients with a hospitalisation period of 3 to 5 days were more frequently enrolled in the pandemic period. Also, patients with idiopathic epistaxis were more frequently enrolled in the pre-pandemic period. Based on the results presented in our study, the period of the Covid 19 pandemic directly influenced both the number of patients and the period of hospitalisation.

[Recurrent, severe epistaxis in COVID-19 patients]. / Rezidivierende, schwere Epistaxis bei COVID-19-Patienten.

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-CoV­2-infection to spontaneous fulminant epistaxis, most likely due to a mucosal inflammation; however, other typical causes must be ruled out.

Nasal Endoscopy in the Clinical Diagnosis of Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of nasal endoscopy for early clinical diagnosis of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) in children and to investigate the characteristics of epistaxis and mucocutaneous telangiectases in our pediatric population. STUDY DESIGN: From May 2016 to December 2019, a cross-sectional observational study was conducted, recruiting children aged 2-18 years with a parent affected by HHT. To identify the Curaçao criteria, all children underwent collection of clinical history, mucocutaneous examination, and nasal endoscopy. The clinical data were then compared with the genetic data acquired subsequently. RESULTS: Seventy children (median age, 10.8 years) were included. All underwent nasal endoscopy without complications. Forty-six children were positive by genetic testing; of these, 26 % had skin and oral telangiectases and 91 % had nasal telangiectases. The diagnostic sensitivity of the Curaçao criteria increased from 28 % (95 % CI, 16%-43 %) to 85 % (95 % CI, 71%-94 %; P < .0001) when the nasal telangiectases were included. CONCLUSIONS: The magnified and complete endoscopic view of the nasal cavities proved useful in increasing the diagnostic sensitivity of the Curaçao criteria. Such an examination turned out to be feasible and safe. For this reason, we believe that nasal endoscopy should be included in the diagnostic assessment of pediatric patients with suspected HHT.

Treating epistaxis - who cares for a bleeding nose? A secondary data analysis of primary and secondary care.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective was to describe outpatient treatment of epistaxis among different physicians based on a large patient population over a period of 10 years. The secondary objective was to evaluate the value of the practice fee as an instrument of allocation in patients with epistaxis. METHODS: Anonymized statutory health insurance data (AOK Lower Saxony) of patients with a diagnosis of epistaxis treated between 2007 and 2016 were examined. Demographic data, accompanying diagnoses, medication and involved medical groups (general practitioners (GP), pediatricians, ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialists or other) were analyzed. Furthermore, we assessed whether the use of specialist groups changed after abolition of the practice fee in 2013. RESULTS: Epistaxis was responsible for 302,782 cases (160,963 patients). The distribution of cases was slightly in favor of ENT specialists vs. GP (119,170 vs. 110,352). The cases seen by GP and ENT specialists were comparable with regard to age and sex distribution. Hypertension, atrial fibrillation/flutter and an antithrombotic therapy were slightly more common among cases consulting a GP. The GP recorded more co-diagnoses than the ENT. The use of outpatient care and the proportions of the involved physicians scarcely fluctuated during the study period. Overall, 23,118 patients (14.4%) were diagnosed by both, GP and ENT during a relatively short time period. The practice fee remuneration had no impact on the consultation of the physician groups. CONCLUSION: The outpatient treatment of epistaxis constitutes a considerable medical and economic burden in Germany. Strengthening the primary medical sector (GP-centered care) is necessary to reach the goal of initially directing patients to primary care, providing specialists more time for severe cases and reducing the impact on public health balance sheets.

[Epistaxis and anticoagulation therapy: an analysis based on health insurance data from Lower Saxony]. / Epistaxis und antithrombotische Medikation: eine Analyse der Daten einer gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung in Niedersachsen.

BACKGROUND: Epistaxis is a common symptom in the medical practice. It is associated with various comorbidities and the use of medications, especially anticoagulants. Despite the high lifetime prevalence, there is limited data on prevalence and possible risk factors. METHODS: The study examines epistaxis care in a large patient population (AOK Lower Saxony) over a ten-year period (2007-2016). Risk factors, age at diagnosis, concomitant medication and comorbidities were analysed and the prevalence in the study period calculated. RESULTS: 162,167 patients visited their doctors between 2007-2016 (308,947 cases). Most patients were treated as outpatients (96.6%) and 54% of patients were men. Over the study period, the prevalence of epistaxis rose by 21% (increase from 8.6 to 9.3 per 1000 insured persons per year) with a comparatively stable prevalence for the inpatient setting (0.2 per 1000 insured persons per year). In 54,105 of all epistaxis cases (17.5%), the use of antithrombotic drugs was recorded (oral anticoagulants: 9.5%). During the study period, increased prescribing of oral anticoagulants (from 7.7% of cases in 2007 to 11.8% in 2016), especially of NOAC was documented (from 0.1% of cases in 2011 to 5.1% in 2016). CONCLUSION: In addition to arterial hypertension, the predominant male sex and the typical age distribution, we found that cases of epistaxis often received anticoagulation therapy. This study showed an increase of epistaxis along with rising prescriptions of NOAC. In contrast, no increase of severe epistaxis cases leading to hospitalization was found.

Standardised management of atraumatic epistaxis for improved outcomes in an emergency department with off-site ear, nose and throat cover - A quality improvement project.

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Otorhinolaryngology services are not available in all hospitals and atraumatic epistaxis is a common presentation to Emergency Departments (ED). Not all ED staff are experienced in managing epistaxis and there appeared to be a high rate of re-bleeding after treatment provided. We aimed to improve outcome for ED patients presenting with atraumatic epistaxis and staff conditions by creating a Departmental pathway outlining a management plan and ensuring all equipment needed was readily available. METHODS: A retrospective 6-month audit was done to assess current management and re-bleed percentage rates post nasal packing. A team was assembled, stocked a trolley, created an Atraumatic epistaxis ED pathway and promoted its use by staff. Repeated Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles were undertaken.Chosen measures were (1) Reduced re-bleed rates post nasal packing from initial audit levels; (2) Increased nasal packing duration; (3) Improved qualitative feedback by ED doctors (4) 100% E.N.T. trolley stock. RESULTS: Audit showed minimal use of vasoconstrictor spray, a 7-hour mean nasal pack duration, a re-bleed rate post nasal packing of 39% and staff reports of difficulties accessing items required.After introduction of the E.N.T. trolley, there was positive staff feedback regarding improved availability of treatment items and full stocking of the trolley was achieved after repeated cycles.Following introduction of the Epistaxis pathway and staff education, average re-bleed rates post nasal packing dropped* from 39% to 20% in the first cycle; 21% in the third cycle; 25% in the fourth cycle and 14% in the fifth cycle- (*Isolated re-bleed average of 40% observed in the second cycle).Mean nasal packing duration increased from 7 h to 9, 10, 10, 12 and 8 h in the 2-monthly cycles successively. CONCLUSION: The project's aims of improving epistaxis patients' outcomes and improved convenience for ED staff were achieved.

Winter peaks in web-based public inquiry into epistaxis.

PURPOSE: Epistaxis represents the most frequent ear, nose, throat-related emergency symptom. Seasonal variation in epistaxis incidence, with peaks during winter months, is widely accepted, although the literature itself remains inconclusive. The objective of this study was to evaluate public inquiry into nose bleeding, by considering Google-based search query frequency on "Epistaxis"-related search terms and to assess possible seasonal variations globally. METHODS: Epistaxis-related search terms were systematically collected and compared using Google Trends (GT). Relative search volumes for the most relevant epistaxis-related terms, covering a timeframe from 2004 to 2019 were analysed using cosinor time series analysis for the United States of America, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. RESULTS: Graphical representation revealed seasonal variations with peaks during winter months in the majority of countries included. Subsequent cosinor analysis revealed these variations to be significant (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Public interest in seeking epistaxis-related information through the Internet displayed seasonal patterns in countries from both hemispheres, with the highest interest during winter months. Further studies exploring causality with environmental factors are warranted.

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.

Hypertension and Epistaxis: Why Is There Limited Guidance in the Nosebleed Clinical Practice Guidelines?

Hypertension has long been thought to influence the risk and severity of epistaxis. However, evaluation of the relevant literature reveals articles with methodologic concerns or limited quality. In many instances, these studies are not adequately controlled, and lack of multivariate analyses calls into question any noted association between epistaxis and hypertension. The goal of this commentary is to explain why there is limited guidance about the management of hypertension and the possible association with nosebleed in the 2020 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation clinical practice guideline for nosebleeds. Background on the literature that describes the association between hypertension and nosebleeds is provided.

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.

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.

Improving efficiency in epistaxis transfers in a large health system: Analyzing emergency department treatment variability as pretext for a clinical care pathway.

INTRODUCTION: Epistaxis is a common condition with an estimated $100 million in health care costs annually. A significant portion of this stems from Emergency Department (ED) management and hospital transfers. Currently there is no data in the literature clearly depicting the differences in treatment of epistaxis between Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians and Otolaryngologists. Clinical care pathways (CCP) are a way to standardize care and increase efficiency. Our goal was to evaluate the variability in epistaxis management between EM and Otolaryngology physicians in order to determine the potential impact of a system wide clinical care pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective case study was conducted of all patients transferred between emergency departments for epistaxis over an 18-month period. Exclusion criteria comprised patients under 18 years old, recent sinonasal surgery, bleeding disorders, and recent facial trauma. RESULTS: 73 patients met inclusion criteria. EM physicians used nasal cautery in 8%, absorbable packing in 1% and non-absorbable packing in 92% (with 33% being bilateral). In comparison, Otolaryngologists used nasal cautery in 37%, absorbable packing in 34%, and non-absorbable packing in 23%. Eighty percent of patients treated by an Otolaryngology physician required less invasive intervention than previously performed by EM physicians prior to transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Epistaxis management varied significantly between Emergency Medicine and Otolaryngology physicians. Numerous patients were treated immediately with non-absorbable packing. On post-transfer Otolaryngology evaluation, many of these patients required less invasive interventions. This study highlights the variability of epistaxis treatment within our hospital system and warrants the need for a standardized care pathway.

Doctor Google: Correlating internet search trends for epistaxis with metropolitan climates.

OBJECTIVE: Variation in weather patterns is often cited as a risk factor for epistaxis although robust studies investigating specific climate factors are lacking. As society is increasingly utilizing the Internet to learn more about their medical conditions, we explore whether Internet search activity related to epistaxis is influenced by fluctuations in climate. METHODS: Internet search activity for epistaxis-related search terms during 2012-2017 were extracted from Google Trends and localized to six highly populated cities in the US: New York, New York; Los Angeles, California; Chicago, Illinois; Houston, Texas; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Atlanta, Georgia. Data were compared to local average monthly climate data from the National Centers for Environmental Information for the same time period. RESULTS: Spearmen correlations (r) were statistically strongest for dew point temperature (rNewYork = -0.82; rPhiladelphia = -0.74; rChicago = -0.65; rAtlanta = -0.49, rLosAngeles = -0.3). This was followed closely by relative humidity (rNewYork = -0.63; rPhiladelphia = -0.57; rLosAngeles = -0.44; rAtlanta = -0.42; rHouston = -0.40) and average temperature (rNewYork = -0.8; rPhiladelphia = -0.72; rChicago = -0.62; rAtlanta = -0.45). Overall, correlations were most significant and predictable for cities with the greatest seasonal climate shifts (New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago). The weakest environmental factor was barometric pressure, which was found to be moderately positive in Atlanta (rbarometric = 0.31), Philadelphia (rbarometric = 0.30) and New York (rbarometric = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Google Trends data for epistaxis-related search activity responds closely to climate patterns in most cities studied, thus underscoring the potential utility of Internet search activity data as a resource for epidemiologic study and for the identification of at risk populations.

Epistaxis in the cirrhotic patient: A complication to be considered. / Epistaxis en el paciente cirrótico: una complicación a tener en cuenta.

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.