Literature DB >> 28688212

Treatment disparities in the management of epistaxis in United States emergency departments.

Rosh K V Sethi1,2, Elliott D Kozin1,2, Nicholas B Abt1,2, Regan Bergmark1,2, Stacey T Gray1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: There is limited data on epistaxis presentation and management patterns in U.S. emergency departments (EDs). We aim to characterize patients who present to the ED with epistaxis and identify factors associated with nasal-packing use. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective review of Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) from 2009 to 2011.
METHODS: NEDS was queried for patient visits with a primary diagnosis of epistaxis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 784.7). Patient demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics were obtained. Predictors of nasal packing were determined by multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: There were 1,234,267 ED visits for epistaxis. The highest proportion of patients were seen in the winter (37.2%) at nontrauma hospitals (76.9%), and were discharged home (95.5%). Fifteen percent of patients were on long-term anticoagulation, 33% had hypertension, and 0.9% had a coagulopathy. Nasal packing was utilized in 243,268 patients (19.7%). Predictors strongly associated with nasal packing included lower socioeconomic quartile (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10-1.53), hospital located in the geographic South (OR 1.62, CI = 1.12-2.34) and Midwest (OR 1.85, P < 0.0001), and nontrauma hospital (OR 1.56, CI = 1.19-2.05). Other factors included long-term anticoagulation (OR 1.21, CI = 1.10-1.33), winter season (OR 1.20, CI = 1.12-1.23), male gender (OR 1.14, CI = 1.10-1.17), and older age (OR 1.01, CI = 1.01-1.02). Mean ED charge was greater for patients who were packed ($1,473 vs. $1,048, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Several factors, including lower socioeconomic status, geographic location, and nontrauma hospital designation, predict use of nasal packing. These results raise concerns about potential treatment disparities that may result in increased patient morbidity and costs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2C. Laryngoscope, 128:356-362, 2018.
© 2017 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Epistaxis; anticoagulation; disparities; emergency department; nasal packing; socioeconomic status

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28688212     DOI: 10.1002/lary.26683

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  5 in total

1.  Usefulness of computed tomography in predicting ethmoidal arterial bleeding in refractory epistaxis.

Authors:  Yung Jin Jeon; Dae Hwan Kim; Young Chul Kim; Byeong Min Lee; Yeon-Hee Joo; Hyun-Jin Cho; Sang-Wook Kim
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 2.  Endovascular Treatment of Epistaxis.

Authors:  Joan C Wojak
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 1.513

3.  Topical Tranexamic Acid versus Phenylephrine-lidocaine for the Treatment of Anterior Epistaxis in Patients Taking Aspirin or Clopidogrel; a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Keyvan Amini; AmirAhmad Arabzadeh; Sevda Jahed; Payman Amini
Journal:  Arch Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2020-11-19

4.  Risk Factors and Management for Epistaxis in a Hospitalized Adult Sample.

Authors:  Andrew Ross; Steven Engebretsen; Rebecca Mahoney; Samba Bathula
Journal:  Spartan Med Res J       Date:  2022-09-06

5.  Anterior epistaxis.

Authors:  Ameen Biadsee; Alan Gob; Leigh Sowerby
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 16.859

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.