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

Scott Murray, Adrian Mendez, Alexander Hopkins, Hamdy El-Hakim, Caroline C Jeffery, David W J Côté, Scott Murray, Adrian Mendez, Alexander Hopkins, Hamdy El-Hakim, Caroline C Jeffery, David W J Côté

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Epistaxis; Floseal® (Baxter; Nasal packing; Persistent; USA).

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Health and Research Ethics Board of the University of Alberta approved this study (REB#: Pro00057060). Written consent was attained from all study participants prior to treatment.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

To all of the authors’ knowledge this manuscript adheres to the Journal of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery’s editorial policies. Possible perceived competing interests include receiving an unrestricted research grant of Floseal® (Baxter, USA) product from Baxter.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Patient flow diagram participant numbers for enrollment, allocation, follow-up and analysis
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Cost effectiveness acceptability curve for Floseal® (Baxter, USA) Hemostatic Matrix
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
95% Confidence ellipses of bootstrapped incremental costs and incremental effects from both health system and societal perspectives (cost-effectiveness plane). Legend: *point estimate residing in the right lower quadrant indicates that the treatment (i.e. Floseal® (Baxter, USA)) is by definition, cost-effective and dominant)

References

    1. Vaiman M, Segal S, Eviatar E. Fibrin glue treatment for epistaxis. Rhinology. 2002;40:88–91.
    1. Viehweg TL, Roberson JB, Hudson JW. Epistaxis: diagnosis and treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;64(3):511–518. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.11.031.
    1. Fairbanks D. Complications of nasal packing. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1986;94(3):412–415. doi: 10.1177/019459988609400337.
    1. Cote D, Barber B, et al. Floseal Hemostatic matrix in persistent Epistaxis: a prospective clinical trial. J Oto Surgery. 2010;3:304–308.
    1. Oz MC, Cosgrove DM, 3rd, Badduke BR, et al. Controlled clinical trial of a novel hemostatic agent in cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;69:1376–1382. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(00)01194-2.
    1. Oz MC, Rondinone JF, Shargill NS. FloSeal matrix: new generation topical hemostatic sealant. J Card Surg. 2003;18:486–493. doi: 10.1046/j.0886-0440.2003.00302.x.
    1. Renkens KL, Jr, Payner TD, Leipzig TJ, et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating a new hemostatic agent for spinal surgery. Spine. 2001;26:1645–1650. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200108010-00002.
    1. Nasso G, Piancone F, Bonifazi R, et al. Prospective, randomized clinical trial of the FloSeal matrix sealant in cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88:1520–1526. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.07.014.
    1. Gazzeri R, Galarza M, Alfier A. Safety biocompatibility of gelatin hemostatic matrix (Floseal and Surgiflo) in neurosurgical procedures. Surg Technol Int. 2012;22:49–54.
    1. Song T, Lee SH, Kim WY. Additional benefit of hemostatic sealant in preservation of ovarian reserve during laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy: a multi-center, randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(8):1659–1665. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu125.
    1. Wang C, Han Z, Zhang T, et al. The efficacy of a thrombin-based hemostatic agent in primary total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2014;9:90. doi: 10.1186/s13018-014-0090-7.
    1. Li CC, Yeh HC, Lee HY, et al. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy without intracorporeal suturing. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(4):1585–1591. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4382-8.
    1. Kilty SJ, Al-Hajry M, Al-Mutairi D, et al. Prospective clinical trial of gelatin-thrombin matrix as first line treatment of posterior epistaxis. Laryngoscope. 2014;124:38–42. doi: 10.1002/lary.24240.
    1. Mathiasen RA, Cruz RM. Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a novel matrix hemostatic sealant in patients with acute anterior epistaxis. Laryngoscope. 2005;115:899–902. doi: 10.1097/01.MLG.0000160528.50017.3C.
    1. Jo SH, Mathiasen RA, Gurushanthaiah D. Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of a hemostatic sealant in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;137:454–458. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2006.09.020.
    1. Jameson M, Gross CW, Kountakis SE. FloSeal use in endoscopic sinus surgery: effect on postoperative bleeding and synechiae formation. Am J Otolaryngol. 2006;27:86–90. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2005.07.011.
    1. Ujam A, Awad A, Wong G, et al. Safety trial of Floseal® haemostatic agent in head and neck surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2012;94:336–339. doi: 10.1308/003588412X13171221590971.
    1. Pomerantz J, Dutton JM. Platelet gel for endoscopic sinus surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2005;114:699–704. doi: 10.1177/000348940511400908.
    1. Schaitkin, Strauss, Houck, et al. Medical versus surgical therapy: a comparison of efficacy, complications, and economic considerations. Laryngoscope. 1987;97(12):1392–1396. doi: 10.1288/00005537-198712000-00003.
    1. Pope LE, Hobbs CG. Epistaxis: an update on current management. Postgrad Med J. 2005;81(955):309–314. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2004.025007.
    1. Khan MK, Reda E, Badawey M, et al. The utility of FloSeal haemostatic agent in the management of epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol. 2015;129(4):353–357. doi: 10.1017/S0022215115000663.
    1. Price DD, McGrath PA, Rafii A, et al. The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain. 1983;17:45–56. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(83)90126-4.
    1. Corbridge RJ, Djazaeri B, Hellier WPL, et al. A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing the use of Merocel nasal tampons andBIPP inthe control of acute epistaxis. 1995. Clin Otolaryngol. 1995;20:305–307. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2273.1995.tb00047.x.
    1. Pringle MB, Beasley P, Brightwell AP. The use of Merocel nasal packs in the treatment of epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol. 1996;110:543–546. doi: 10.1017/S0022215100134218.
    1. Van Hout BA, Gordon GS, Rutten FF. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 1994;3(5):309–319. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730030505.
    1. O’Hagan A, Steven JW, Montmartin J. Inference for the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve and cost-effectiveness ratio. PharmacoEconomics. 2000;17(4):339–349. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200017040-00004.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren