Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-hfbn9 Total loading time: 0.179 Render date: 2021-06-13T13:54:11.159Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Intranasal packs and haemostatic agents for the management of adult epistaxis: systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2017

I Z Iqbal
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
G H Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, UK
N Dawe
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
C Mamais
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, UK
M E Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK
R J Williams
Affiliation:
Institute of Naval Medicine, Gosport, UK
I Kuhn
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, UK
S Carrie
Affiliation:
Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

Background:

The mainstay of management of epistaxis refractory to first aid and cautery is intranasal packing. This review aimed to identify evidence surrounding nasal pack use.

Method:

A systematic review of the literature was performed using standardised methodology.

Results:

Twenty-seven eligible articles were identified relating to non-dissolvable packs and nine to dissolvable packs. Nasal packing appears to be more effective when applied by trained professionals. For non-dissolvable packs, the re-bleed rates for Rapid Rhino and Merocel were similar, but were higher with bismuth iodoform paraffin paste packing. Rapid Rhino packs were the most tolerated non-dissolvable packs. Evidence indicates that 96 per cent of re-bleeding occurs within the first 4 hours after nasal pack removal. Limited evidence suggests that dissolvable packs are effective and well tolerated by patients. There was a lack of evidence relating to: the duration of pack use, the economic effects of pack choice and the appropriate care setting for non-dissolvable packs.

Conclusion:

Rapid Rhino packs are the best tolerated, with efficacy equivalent to nasal tampons. FloSeal is easy to use, causes less discomfort and may be superior to Merocel in anterior epistaxis cases. There is no strong evidence to support prophylactic antibiotic use.

Type
Review Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1 Kundi, NA, Raza, M. Duration of nasal packs in the management of epistaxis. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2015;25:202–5Google ScholarPubMed
2 McGlashan, J, Walsh, R, Dauod, A, Vowles, A, Gleeson, M. A comparative study of calcium sodium alginate (Kaltostat) and bismuth tribromophenate (Xeroform) packing in the management of epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol 1992;106:1067–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Biswas, D, Mal, R. Are systemic prophylactic antibiotics indicated with anterior nasal packing for spontaneous epistaxis? Acta Otolaryngol 2009;129:179–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Clinical Knowledge Summaries. Epistaxis (nosebleeds). In: https://cks.nice.org.uk/epistaxis-nosebleeds [2 August 2017]Google Scholar
5 BMJ Best Practice on Epistaxis. In: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/best-practice/monograph-pdf/421.pdf [2 August 2017]Google Scholar
6 Evans, AS, Young, D, Adamson, R. Is the nasal tampon a suitable treatment for epistaxis in Accident & Emergency? A comparison of outcomes for ENT and A&E packed patients. J Laryngol Otol 2004;118:1214 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Badran, K, Malik, T, Belloso, A, Timms, M. Randomized controlled trial comparing Merocel and RapidRhino packing in the management of anterior epistaxis. Clin Otolaryngol 2005;30:333–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8 Khan, M, Conroy, K, Ubayasiri, K, Constable, J, Smith, ME, Williams, RJ et al. Initial assessment in the management of adult epistaxis: systematic review. J Laryngol Otol. In pressGoogle Scholar
9 Pollice, PA, Yoder, MG. Epistaxis: a retrospective review of hospitalized patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;117:4953 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Singer, AJ, Blanda, M, Cronin, K, LoGiudice-Khwaja, M, Gulla, J, Bradshaw, J et al. Comparison of nasal tampons for the treatment of epistaxis in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med 2005;45:134–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Corbridge, R, Djazaeri, B, Hellier, W, Hadley, J. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the use of merocel nasal tampons and BIPP in the control of acute epistaxis. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1995;20:305–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Mathiasen, RA, Cruz, RM. Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a novel matrix hemostatic sealant in patients with acute anterior epistaxis. Laryngoscope 2005;115:899902 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13 Kundra, A, Cho, W, Sahota, R, Pau, H, Conboy, P. Epistaxis management: is there a role for floseal? Int J Surg 2014;12(suppl 3):S44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Shikani, AH, Chahine, KA, Alqudah, MA. Endoscopically guided chitosan nasal packing for intractable epistaxis. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2011;25:61–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15 Bhatnagar, R, Berry, S. Selective surgicel packing for the treatment of posterior epistaxis. Ear Nose Throat J 2004;83:633–4Google ScholarPubMed
16 Côté, D, Barber, B, Diamond, C, Wright, E. FloSeal hemostatic matrix in persistent epistaxis: prospective clinical trial. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;39:304–8Google ScholarPubMed
17 Kilty, SJ, Al-Hajry, M, Al-Mutairi, D, Bonaparte, JP, Duval, M, Hwang, E et al. Prospective clinical trial of gelatin-thrombin matrix as first line treatment of posterior epistaxis. Laryngoscope 2014;124:3842 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18 Walshe, P. The use of fibrin glue to arrest epistaxis in the presence of a coagulopathy. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1126–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19 Upile, T, Jerjes, W, Sipaul, F, El Maaytah, M, Singh, S, Hopper, C et al. A change in UK epistaxis management. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265:1349–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20 Glicksman, JT, Brandt, MG, Moukarbel, RV, Rotenberg, B, Fung, K. Computer-assisted teaching of epistaxis management: a randomized controlled trial. Laryngoscope 2009;119:466–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21 Lammers, RL. Learning and retention rates after training in posterior epistaxis management. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:1181–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22 Sugarman, P, Alderson, D. Training model for nasal packing. J Accid Emerg Med 1995;12:276–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23 Moumoulidis, I, Draper, MR, Patel, H, Jani, P, Price, T. A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing Merocel and Rapid Rhino nasal tampons in the treatment of epistaxis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263:719–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24 Murthy, P, Christodoulou, C, Yatigammana, N, Datoo, M. The influence of medical audit on the management of epistaxis in three district general hospitals. J Laryngol Otol 1994;108:3841 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25 Hettige, R, Mackeith, S, Falzon, A, Draper, M. A study to determine the benefits of bilateral versus unilateral nasal packing with Rapid Rhino packs. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:519–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26 Mackeith, S, Hettige, R, Falzon, A, Draper, M. The relationship between pressure and volume when using Rapid Rhino(r) packs in the management of epistaxis. Rhinology 2011;49:470–3Google ScholarPubMed
27 Nikolaou, G, Holzmann, D, Soyka, MB. Discomfort and costs in epistaxis treatment. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:2239–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28 Wang, TC, Tai, CJ, Tsou, YA, Tsai, LT, Li, YF, Tsai, MH. Absorbable and nonabsorbable packing after functional endoscopic sinus surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272:1825–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29 Van Wyk, F, Massey, S, Worley, G, Brady, S. Do all epistaxis patients with a nasal pack need admission? A retrospective study of 116 patients managed in accident and emergency according to a peer reviewed protocol. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121:222–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30 Mehanna, H, Abdelkader, M, Albahnasawy, L, Johnston, A. Early discharge following nasal pack removal: is it feasible? Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002;27:153–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31 Wetmore, SJ, Scrima, L, Hiller, FC. Sleep apnea in epistaxis patients treated with nasal packs. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988;98:596–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32 Herzon, FS. Bacteremia and local infections with nasal packing. Arch Otolaryngol 1971;94:317–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33 Derkay, CS, Hirsch, BE, Johnson, JT, Wagner, RL. Posterior nasal packing: are intravenous antibiotics really necessary? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989;115:439–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34 Pepper, C, Lo, S, Toma, A. Prospective study of the risk of not using prophylactic antibiotics in nasal packing for epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol 2012;126:257–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 Biggs, T, Nightingale, K, Patel, N, Salib, R. Should prophylactic antibiotics be used routinely in epistaxis patients with nasal packs? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2013;95:40–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36 Shargorodsky, J, Bleier, BS, Holbrook, EH, Cohen, JM, Busaba, N, Metson, R et al. Outcomes analysis in epistaxis management: development of a therapeutic algorithm. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;149:390–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37 Tibbels, EW. Evaluation of a new method of epistaxis management. Laryngoscope 1963;73:306–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38 Cook, PR, Renner, G, Williams, F. A comparison of nasal balloons and posterior gauze packs for posterior epistaxis. Ear Nose Throat J 1985;64:446–9Google ScholarPubMed
39 Pringle, MB, Beasley, P, Brightwell, AP. The use of Merocel nasal packs in the treatment of epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol 1996;110:543–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40 Soyka, MB, Nikolaou, G, Rufibach, K, Holzmann, D. On the effectiveness of treatment options in epistaxis: an analysis of 678 interventions. Rhinology 2011;49:474–8Google ScholarPubMed
41 Elwany, S, Kamel, T, Mekhamer, A. Pneumatic nasal catheters: advantages and drawbacks. J Laryngol Otol 1986;100:641–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42 Kourelis, K, Shikani, AH. Effectiveness of chitosan-based packing in 35 patients with recalcitrant epistaxis in the context of coagulopathy. Clin Otolaryngol 2012;37:309–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43 Khan, MK, Reda El Badawey, M, Powell, J, Idris, M. The utility of FloSeal haemostatic agent in the management of epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol 2015;129:353–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Intranasal packs and haemostatic agents for the management of adult epistaxis: systematic review
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Intranasal packs and haemostatic agents for the management of adult epistaxis: systematic review
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Intranasal packs and haemostatic agents for the management of adult epistaxis: systematic review
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *