The pattern of epistaxis recurrence in patients taking prophylactic acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) from a 10 year cohort

Abstract

Abstract Objectives Epistaxis is the most common otolaryngological emergency and one-third of epistaxis patients regularly take low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The shift in contemporary guidelines identifies little benefit of ASA intake in patients who have not previously had an infarction. Existing evidence confirms ASA intake as a factor for severe epistaxis, while the evidence concerning its impact on recurrence is ambiguous. There are no available studies which justify the administration of these drugs nor are there any studies correlating the effects of these drugs to the SCORE2 CVD risk stratifying scale. Study design A retrospective analysis of all admitted epistaxis patients in a tertiary academic hospital for the 10 year period 2011 to 2021. Methods Patient data were analysed using the hospital information software. A recurrence was defined as an epistaxis episode requiring hospital readmittance for at least one night. Patients taking anticoagulants were excluded (N = 421). Results 444 patients were included: 246 were taking ASA and 198 were not (NoASA). ASA patients had more frequent recurrence in general (p = 0.03), more recurrences per patient (p = 0.002), and more changes in bleeding localisation (p = 0.04). Recurrence in the ASA group was associated with lower haemoglobin values (HR 0.62, p < 0.0001), while surgery (HR 6.83, p < 0.0001) was associated with recurrence in the NoASA group. ASA patients had a statistically significant (r 0.33, p = 0.032) correlation between the total number of epistaxis recurrences and SCORE2. The indication for drug intake was highly questionable in as much as 40% of ASA patients. Follow-up time was 5.27 years. Conclusions Epistaxis patients taking prophylactic ASA are significantly more burdened by recurrence, because they have more frequent recurrences, a greater number of recurrences per patient, and more changes in bleeding localisations when compared to control patients. The drug indication is questionable in up to 40% of ASA patients, exposing them unnecessarily to recurrence. Level of evidence 4.