Thorsten Send1, Mattis Bertlich2, Fritz Horlbeck3, Darius Schafigh1, Saskia Freytag4, Klaus W Eichhorn1, Ingo Gräff5, Friedrich Bootz1, Mark Jakob2. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Munich, Munich, Germany. 3. Internal Medicine II-Department of Cardiology, Angiology and Pneumology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 4. Population Health and Immunity Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and Department of Medical Biology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. 5. Emergency Department, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epistaxis is one of the more common reasons for emergency room visits. The main risk factor for epistaxis is anticoagulant therapy. Until recently, the main culprit was oral intake of a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, which has a number of side effects. Even more recently, several direct oral anticoagulants, rivaroxaban and dabigatran, have been approved for use. We investigated the possible differences between treatment of epistaxis with direct oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary referral center in Germany. All patients who were admitted within a 1-year period were included. Patient files were used to obtain the information. RESULTS: Overall, 677 patients were included in our study. Of these, 159 had been treated with vitamin K antagonists and 49 with direct oral anticoagulants. There were no significant differences in terms of age (p = 0.592), sex (p = 0.372), vital signs, bloodwork, or location of bleeding (p = 0.372). Management of epistaxis between the groups was also comparable (p = 0.399), with similar hospital admission rates (37.1% vs 24.5%; p = 0.145) and duration of stay (3.5 ± 2.1 days vs 3.8 ± 3.3 days; p = 0.650). CONCLUSION: We found no evidence to suggest epistaxis is more severe or requires more invasive therapy in patients given direct oral anticoagulants. A significant proportion of patients on vitamin K antagonists were not within the target range for international normalized ratio, highlighting one of the main issues with oral anticoagulation by vitamin K antagonists.
BACKGROUND: Epistaxis is one of the more common reasons for emergency room visits. The main risk factor for epistaxis is anticoagulant therapy. Until recently, the main culprit was oral intake of a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, which has a number of side effects. Even more recently, several direct oral anticoagulants, rivaroxaban and dabigatran, have been approved for use. We investigated the possible differences between treatment of epistaxis with direct oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary referral center in Germany. All patients who were admitted within a 1-year period were included. Patient files were used to obtain the information. RESULTS: Overall, 677 patients were included in our study. Of these, 159 had been treated with vitamin K antagonists and 49 with direct oral anticoagulants. There were no significant differences in terms of age (p = 0.592), sex (p = 0.372), vital signs, bloodwork, or location of bleeding (p = 0.372). Management of epistaxis between the groups was also comparable (p = 0.399), with similar hospital admission rates (37.1% vs 24.5%; p = 0.145) and duration of stay (3.5 ± 2.1 days vs 3.8 ± 3.3 days; p = 0.650). CONCLUSION: We found no evidence to suggest epistaxis is more severe or requires more invasive therapy in patients given direct oral anticoagulants. A significant proportion of patients on vitamin K antagonists were not within the target range for international normalized ratio, highlighting one of the main issues with oral anticoagulation by vitamin K antagonists.