Kristen Whitworth1, Jacob Johnson1, Samuel Wisniewski2, Megan Schrader1. 1. Lakeland Health Emergency Medicine Residency Program, Lakeland Health, Saint Joseph, Michigan. 2. Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, East Lansing, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of tranexamic acid (TXA) has recently gained popularity as a treatment modality for epistaxis in the emergency department. Previous studies have compared topical TXA to nasal packing. However, topical TXA has not yet been compared with topical oxymetazoline in the treatment of epistaxis. OBJECTIVES: This study compares the efficacy of the intravenous formulation of TXA applied topically vs. the vasoconstrictor oxymetazoline applied topically in achieving hemostasis in patients presenting to the emergency department with anterior epistaxis. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients presenting to the emergency department with the chief complaint of epistaxis, and meeting inclusion criteria, were allocated into 2 treatment groups; topical oxymetazoline vs. topical application of the intravenous preparation of TXA. Patients were assessed for time to hemostasis in the emergency department as well as the occurrence of rebleeding within the next 48 h after discharge. RESULTS: Hemostasis was achieved in 14 (78%) of the 18 patients in the TXA group compared with 7 (35%) of the 20 patients in the oxymetazoline group. While there were occurrences of rebleeding in the emergency department before discharge and at 48 h in both groups, 11 patients in the TXA group had no recurrence of bleeding compared with 5 in the oxymetazoline group. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the topical application of the intravenous preparation of TXA is more effective than topical oxymetazoline for achievement of hemostasis in anterior epistaxis. This has clinical significance toward preventing an avoidable need for escalation of treatment that could include applying nasal packing or cautery as well as preventing avoidable return emergency department visits. These outcomes would increase cost, potentially increase patient discomfort, and prolong emergency department throughput time.
BACKGROUND: The use of tranexamic acid (TXA) has recently gained popularity as a treatment modality for epistaxis in the emergency department. Previous studies have compared topical TXA to nasal packing. However, topical TXA has not yet been compared with topical oxymetazoline in the treatment of epistaxis. OBJECTIVES: This study compares the efficacy of the intravenous formulation of TXA applied topically vs. the vasoconstrictor oxymetazoline applied topically in achieving hemostasis in patients presenting to the emergency department with anterior epistaxis. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients presenting to the emergency department with the chief complaint of epistaxis, and meeting inclusion criteria, were allocated into 2 treatment groups; topical oxymetazoline vs. topical application of the intravenous preparation of TXA. Patients were assessed for time to hemostasis in the emergency department as well as the occurrence of rebleeding within the next 48 h after discharge. RESULTS: Hemostasis was achieved in 14 (78%) of the 18 patients in the TXA group compared with 7 (35%) of the 20 patients in the oxymetazoline group. While there were occurrences of rebleeding in the emergency department before discharge and at 48 h in both groups, 11 patients in the TXA group had no recurrence of bleeding compared with 5 in the oxymetazoline group. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the topical application of the intravenous preparation of TXA is more effective than topical oxymetazoline for achievement of hemostasis in anterior epistaxis. This has clinical significance toward preventing an avoidable need for escalation of treatment that could include applying nasal packing or cautery as well as preventing avoidable return emergency department visits. These outcomes would increase cost, potentially increase patient discomfort, and prolong emergency department throughput time.
Authors: W Behr; F Horschke; A Nastev; C E Mueller; J U Sommer; B Folz; H Li; U W Geisthoff; B A Stuck; R Birk Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 2.503