Cargando…

Management of Persistent Epistaxis Using Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs. traditional nasal packing: a prospective randomized control trial

BACKGROUND: Epistaxis is the most common emergent consultation to otolaryngology-head & neck surgery (OHNS) and with 60% of the population having experienced an episode and 1.6 in 10,000 requiring hospitalization in their lifetime. In preliminary studies Floseal® (Baxter, USA) Hemostatic Matrix...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Murray, Scott, Mendez, Adrian, Hopkins, Alexander, El-Hakim, Hamdy, Jeffery, Caroline C., Côté, David W. J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5759868/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29310703
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-017-0248-5
_version_ 1783291285592866816
author Murray, Scott
Mendez, Adrian
Hopkins, Alexander
El-Hakim, Hamdy
Jeffery, Caroline C.
Côté, David W. J.
author_facet Murray, Scott
Mendez, Adrian
Hopkins, Alexander
El-Hakim, Hamdy
Jeffery, Caroline C.
Côté, David W. J.
author_sort Murray, Scott
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Epistaxis is the most common emergent consultation to otolaryngology-head & neck surgery (OHNS) and with 60% of the population having experienced an episode and 1.6 in 10,000 requiring hospitalization in their lifetime. In preliminary studies Floseal® (Baxter, USA) Hemostatic Matrix has shown efficacy in up to 80% of persistent anterior epistaxis. We sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Floseal® (Baxter, USA) compared to traditional nasal packing for persistent epistaxis. METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted on all adult patients consulted to the OHNS service at the tertiary referral centers of the University of Alberta Hospital and Royal Alexandra Hospital for persistent epistaxis. Patients were randomized to the Floseal® (Baxter, USA) or traditional packing study arms. Our main clinical outcome measures were: 1) Hemostasis directly following treatment and at 48 h post-treatment, and 2) self-reported patient comfort at 48 h post-treatment. Further, trial data was used for a formal cost-effectiveness analysis to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate sensitivity analysis and uncertainty analysis were performed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups for initial hemostasis (76.9% vs. 84.6%, p = 1.000) or, hemostasis at 48 h (76.9% vs. 69.2%, p = 1.000), requirement for admission (15.4% vs. 46.1%, p = 0.2016) or 30-day re-presentation rates (15.4% vs. 46.1%, p = 0.2016). Floseal® (Baxter, USA) was superior for decreased pain during placement (2.42 vs. 7.77, p = 0.0022), treatment (0.50 vs. 4.46, p = 0.0007) and removal (0 vs. 3.85, p = 0.0021). Floseal® (Baxter, USA) provides an average $1567.61 per patient savings from the single-payer system point of view and has an ICER of - $11,891 per re-bleed prevented (95% CI: -$37,658 to +$473). Uncertainty analysis shows that Floseal® has >90% chance of not only being cost-effective, but the dominant (preferred) treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Floseal® (Baxter, USA) was demonstrated to be an effective, comfortable and cost-effective alternative treatment of persistent epistaxis when compared to traditional packing methods for patients referred to OHNS with a normal coagulation profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: NCT02488135. Date registered: June 26, 2015.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5759868
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57598682018-01-16 Management of Persistent Epistaxis Using Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs. traditional nasal packing: a prospective randomized control trial Murray, Scott Mendez, Adrian Hopkins, Alexander El-Hakim, Hamdy Jeffery, Caroline C. Côté, David W. J. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Original Research Article BACKGROUND: Epistaxis is the most common emergent consultation to otolaryngology-head & neck surgery (OHNS) and with 60% of the population having experienced an episode and 1.6 in 10,000 requiring hospitalization in their lifetime. In preliminary studies Floseal® (Baxter, USA) Hemostatic Matrix has shown efficacy in up to 80% of persistent anterior epistaxis. We sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Floseal® (Baxter, USA) compared to traditional nasal packing for persistent epistaxis. METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted on all adult patients consulted to the OHNS service at the tertiary referral centers of the University of Alberta Hospital and Royal Alexandra Hospital for persistent epistaxis. Patients were randomized to the Floseal® (Baxter, USA) or traditional packing study arms. Our main clinical outcome measures were: 1) Hemostasis directly following treatment and at 48 h post-treatment, and 2) self-reported patient comfort at 48 h post-treatment. Further, trial data was used for a formal cost-effectiveness analysis to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate sensitivity analysis and uncertainty analysis were performed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups for initial hemostasis (76.9% vs. 84.6%, p = 1.000) or, hemostasis at 48 h (76.9% vs. 69.2%, p = 1.000), requirement for admission (15.4% vs. 46.1%, p = 0.2016) or 30-day re-presentation rates (15.4% vs. 46.1%, p = 0.2016). Floseal® (Baxter, USA) was superior for decreased pain during placement (2.42 vs. 7.77, p = 0.0022), treatment (0.50 vs. 4.46, p = 0.0007) and removal (0 vs. 3.85, p = 0.0021). Floseal® (Baxter, USA) provides an average $1567.61 per patient savings from the single-payer system point of view and has an ICER of - $11,891 per re-bleed prevented (95% CI: -$37,658 to +$473). Uncertainty analysis shows that Floseal® has >90% chance of not only being cost-effective, but the dominant (preferred) treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Floseal® (Baxter, USA) was demonstrated to be an effective, comfortable and cost-effective alternative treatment of persistent epistaxis when compared to traditional packing methods for patients referred to OHNS with a normal coagulation profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: NCT02488135. Date registered: June 26, 2015. BioMed Central 2018-01-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5759868/ /pubmed/29310703 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-017-0248-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Murray, Scott
Mendez, Adrian
Hopkins, Alexander
El-Hakim, Hamdy
Jeffery, Caroline C.
Côté, David W. J.
Management of Persistent Epistaxis Using Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs. traditional nasal packing: a prospective randomized control trial
title Management of Persistent Epistaxis Using Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs. traditional nasal packing: a prospective randomized control trial
title_full Management of Persistent Epistaxis Using Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs. traditional nasal packing: a prospective randomized control trial
title_fullStr Management of Persistent Epistaxis Using Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs. traditional nasal packing: a prospective randomized control trial
title_full_unstemmed Management of Persistent Epistaxis Using Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs. traditional nasal packing: a prospective randomized control trial
title_short Management of Persistent Epistaxis Using Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs. traditional nasal packing: a prospective randomized control trial
title_sort management of persistent epistaxis using floseal hemostatic matrix vs. traditional nasal packing: a prospective randomized control trial
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5759868/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29310703
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-017-0248-5
work_keys_str_mv AT murrayscott managementofpersistentepistaxisusingflosealhemostaticmatrixvstraditionalnasalpackingaprospectiverandomizedcontroltrial
AT mendezadrian managementofpersistentepistaxisusingflosealhemostaticmatrixvstraditionalnasalpackingaprospectiverandomizedcontroltrial
AT hopkinsalexander managementofpersistentepistaxisusingflosealhemostaticmatrixvstraditionalnasalpackingaprospectiverandomizedcontroltrial
AT elhakimhamdy managementofpersistentepistaxisusingflosealhemostaticmatrixvstraditionalnasalpackingaprospectiverandomizedcontroltrial
AT jefferycarolinec managementofpersistentepistaxisusingflosealhemostaticmatrixvstraditionalnasalpackingaprospectiverandomizedcontroltrial
AT cotedavidwj managementofpersistentepistaxisusingflosealhemostaticmatrixvstraditionalnasalpackingaprospectiverandomizedcontroltrial