Is the nasal tampon a suitable treatment for epistaxis in Accident & Emergency? A comparison of outcomes for ENT and A&E packed patients

Andrew S. Evans, David Young, Richard Adamson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This retrospective observational study aimed to establish the outcome for patients packed with a nasal tampon as first-line therapy for epistaxis in Accident & Emergency compared to those packed by ENT. During our study period, 189 admissions were treated with a nasal tampon as first-line therapy; 89 were inserted by ENT and 100 by A&E. A significantly higher number of patients packed by A&E required further treatment to control bleeding (p = 0.004; 95 per cent CI 7-34) than those in the group packed by ENT. A significantly greater proportion from the A&E group required additional cautery alone to control bleeding (p = 0.005; 95 per cent CI 5-30). We suggest that this may be due to inadequate initial assessment and inappropriate first-line therapy in the A&E department. It is recommended that ENT review patients prior to packing, in order to reduce the morbidity associated with multiple treatments.

LanguageEnglish
Pages12-14
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Laryngology and Otology
Volume118
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2004

Fingerprint

Epistaxis
Nose
Accidents
Emergencies
Hemorrhage
Therapeutics
Cautery
Observational Studies
Retrospective Studies
Morbidity

Keywords

  • emergency service
  • epistaxis
  • hospital
  • otolaryngology

Cite this

@article{a903db70fcb947048052f67f5e96a540,
title = "Is the nasal tampon a suitable treatment for epistaxis in Accident & Emergency? A comparison of outcomes for ENT and A&E packed patients",
abstract = "This retrospective observational study aimed to establish the outcome for patients packed with a nasal tampon as first-line therapy for epistaxis in Accident & Emergency compared to those packed by ENT. During our study period, 189 admissions were treated with a nasal tampon as first-line therapy; 89 were inserted by ENT and 100 by A&E. A significantly higher number of patients packed by A&E required further treatment to control bleeding (p = 0.004; 95 per cent CI 7-34) than those in the group packed by ENT. A significantly greater proportion from the A&E group required additional cautery alone to control bleeding (p = 0.005; 95 per cent CI 5-30). We suggest that this may be due to inadequate initial assessment and inappropriate first-line therapy in the A&E department. It is recommended that ENT review patients prior to packing, in order to reduce the morbidity associated with multiple treatments.",
keywords = "emergency service, epistaxis, hospital, otolaryngology",
author = "Evans, {Andrew S.} and David Young and Richard Adamson",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1258/002221504322731556",
language = "English",
volume = "118",
pages = "12--14",
journal = "Journal of Laryngology and Otology",
issn = "0022-2151",
number = "1",

}

Is the nasal tampon a suitable treatment for epistaxis in Accident & Emergency? A comparison of outcomes for ENT and A&E packed patients. / Evans, Andrew S.; Young, David; Adamson, Richard.

In: Journal of Laryngology and Otology, Vol. 118, No. 1, 01.01.2004, p. 12-14.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is the nasal tampon a suitable treatment for epistaxis in Accident & Emergency? A comparison of outcomes for ENT and A&E packed patients

AU - Evans, Andrew S.

AU - Young, David

AU - Adamson, Richard

PY - 2004/1/1

Y1 - 2004/1/1

N2 - This retrospective observational study aimed to establish the outcome for patients packed with a nasal tampon as first-line therapy for epistaxis in Accident & Emergency compared to those packed by ENT. During our study period, 189 admissions were treated with a nasal tampon as first-line therapy; 89 were inserted by ENT and 100 by A&E. A significantly higher number of patients packed by A&E required further treatment to control bleeding (p = 0.004; 95 per cent CI 7-34) than those in the group packed by ENT. A significantly greater proportion from the A&E group required additional cautery alone to control bleeding (p = 0.005; 95 per cent CI 5-30). We suggest that this may be due to inadequate initial assessment and inappropriate first-line therapy in the A&E department. It is recommended that ENT review patients prior to packing, in order to reduce the morbidity associated with multiple treatments.

AB - This retrospective observational study aimed to establish the outcome for patients packed with a nasal tampon as first-line therapy for epistaxis in Accident & Emergency compared to those packed by ENT. During our study period, 189 admissions were treated with a nasal tampon as first-line therapy; 89 were inserted by ENT and 100 by A&E. A significantly higher number of patients packed by A&E required further treatment to control bleeding (p = 0.004; 95 per cent CI 7-34) than those in the group packed by ENT. A significantly greater proportion from the A&E group required additional cautery alone to control bleeding (p = 0.005; 95 per cent CI 5-30). We suggest that this may be due to inadequate initial assessment and inappropriate first-line therapy in the A&E department. It is recommended that ENT review patients prior to packing, in order to reduce the morbidity associated with multiple treatments.

KW - emergency service

KW - epistaxis

KW - hospital

KW - otolaryngology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1642580488&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=403200&fileId=S0022215104000040

U2 - 10.1258/002221504322731556

DO - 10.1258/002221504322731556

M3 - Article

VL - 118

SP - 12

EP - 14

JO - Journal of Laryngology and Otology

T2 - Journal of Laryngology and Otology

JF - Journal of Laryngology and Otology

SN - 0022-2151

IS - 1

ER -