I Z Iqbal1, G H Jones2, N Dawe1, C Mamais3, M E Smith4, R J Williams5, I Kuhn6, S Carrie7. 1. Department of Otolaryngology,Freeman Hospital,Newcastle upon Tyne,UK. 2. Department of Otolaryngology,Manchester Royal Infirmary,UK. 3. Department of Otolaryngology,Aberdeen Royal Infirmary,UK. 4. Department of Otolaryngology,Addenbrooke's Hospital,Cambridge,UK. 5. Institute of Naval Medicine,Gosport,UK. 6. University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine,UK. 7. Newcastle University,Newcastle upon Tyne,UK.
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.
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 iodoformparaffin 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.