A. Mowat, P. Meakin, S. Anastasiadou, R. Bidaye, S. Anari
{"title":"The management of posterior epistaxis in the United Kingdom, a national survey","authors":"A. Mowat, P. Meakin, S. Anastasiadou, R. Bidaye, S. Anari","doi":"10.4193/rhinol/21.056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Posterior bleeds account for 5% of epistaxis. The patient cohort is often elderly and has significant co-morbidities. Such cases have been managed historically with urinary catheters, held in place with umbilical clips. Recently bespoke, double balloon, posterior packs have been utilised. The treatments remain in clinical equipoise with no gold standard or clear national guideline. Methodology: A ten question survey was sent out through www.surveymonkey.com. Attempts were made to contact all Trusts in the United Kingdom via the ENT on call service. A comparison of treatment costs was made. Results: 112 responses have been received. 54% of respondents reported a preference for bespoke posterior pack insertion, only 12% preferred catheters. Twice as many respondents have seen complications from urinary catheters: 14% vs 29%. The availability of posterior packs is inconsistent: 30% of respondents were not aware of the packs or reported them unavailable in their hospital. Conclusions: This survey provides the first comparison of the techniques in the United Kingdom. Bespoke packs have a lower complication rate and are preferred by ENT clinicians on the front line of patient care. We recommend that all UK trusts should stock posterior packs which should be used as first line treatment for cases of posterior epistaxis.","PeriodicalId":74737,"journal":{"name":"Rhinology online","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhinology online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4193/rhinol/21.056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Posterior bleeds account for 5% of epistaxis. The patient cohort is often elderly and has significant co-morbidities. Such cases have been managed historically with urinary catheters, held in place with umbilical clips. Recently bespoke, double balloon, posterior packs have been utilised. The treatments remain in clinical equipoise with no gold standard or clear national guideline. Methodology: A ten question survey was sent out through www.surveymonkey.com. Attempts were made to contact all Trusts in the United Kingdom via the ENT on call service. A comparison of treatment costs was made. Results: 112 responses have been received. 54% of respondents reported a preference for bespoke posterior pack insertion, only 12% preferred catheters. Twice as many respondents have seen complications from urinary catheters: 14% vs 29%. The availability of posterior packs is inconsistent: 30% of respondents were not aware of the packs or reported them unavailable in their hospital. Conclusions: This survey provides the first comparison of the techniques in the United Kingdom. Bespoke packs have a lower complication rate and are preferred by ENT clinicians on the front line of patient care. We recommend that all UK trusts should stock posterior packs which should be used as first line treatment for cases of posterior epistaxis.