To Pack or Not to Pack: Inpatient Management of Epistaxis in the Elderly

Author:

Zhou Albert H.1,Chung Sei Y.1,Sylvester Michael J.1,Zaki Michael1,Svider Peter S.1,Hsueh Wayne D.12,Baredes Soly12,Eloy Jean Anderson1234ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey

2. Center for Skull Base and Pituitary Surgery, Neurological Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey

3. Department of Neurological Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey

4. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey

Abstract

Background Epistaxis is common in elderly patients, occasionally necessitating hospitalization for the management of severe bleeds. In this study, we aim to explore the impact of nasal packing versus nonpacking interventions (cauterization, embolization, and ligation) on outcomes and complications of epistaxis hospitalization in the elderly. Methods The 2008–2013 National Inpatient Sample was queried for elderly patients (≥65 years) with a primary diagnosis of epistaxis and accompanying procedure codes for anterior and posterior nasal packing or nonpacking interventions. Results A total of 8449 cases met the inclusion criteria, with 62.4% receiving only nasal packing and 37.6% receiving nonpacking interventions. On average, nonpacking interventions were associated with a 9.9% increase in length of stay and a 54.0% increase in hospital charges. Comorbidity rates did not vary between cohorts, except for diabetes mellitus, which was less common in the nonpacking cohort (26.6% vs 29.0%; P = .014). Nonpacking interventions were associated with an increased rate of blood transfusion (24.5% vs. 21.8%; P = .004), but no significant differences in rates of stroke, blindness, aspiration pneumonia, infectious pneumonia, thromboembolism, urinary/renal complications, pulmonary complications, cardiac complications, or in-hospital mortality. Comparing patients receiving ligation or embolization, no differences in length of stay, complications, or in-hospital mortality were found; however, embolization patients incurred 232.1% greater hospital charges ( P < .001). Conclusion Nonpacking interventions in the elderly do not appear to be associated with increased morbidity or mortality when compared to nasal packing only but appear to be associated with increased hospital charges and length of stay. Embolization in the elderly results in greater hospital charges but no change in outcome when compared to ligation.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Medicine,Otorhinolaryngology,Immunology and Allergy

Cited by 10 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3