We have located links that may give you full text access.
Treatment disparities in the management of epistaxis in United States emergency departments.
Laryngoscope 2018 Februrary
OBJECTIVES: There is limited data on epistaxis presentation and management patterns in U.S. emergency departments (EDs). We aim to characterize patients who present to the ED with epistaxis and identify factors associated with nasal-packing use.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) from 2009 to 2011.
METHODS: NEDS was queried for patient visits with a primary diagnosis of epistaxis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 784.7). Patient demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics were obtained. Predictors of nasal packing were determined by multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: There were 1,234,267 ED visits for epistaxis. The highest proportion of patients were seen in the winter (37.2%) at nontrauma hospitals (76.9%), and were discharged home (95.5%). Fifteen percent of patients were on long-term anticoagulation, 33% had hypertension, and 0.9% had a coagulopathy. Nasal packing was utilized in 243,268 patients (19.7%). Predictors strongly associated with nasal packing included lower socioeconomic quartile (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10-1.53), hospital located in the geographic South (OR 1.62, CI = 1.12-2.34) and Midwest (OR 1.85, P < 0.0001), and nontrauma hospital (OR 1.56, CI = 1.19-2.05). Other factors included long-term anticoagulation (OR 1.21, CI = 1.10-1.33), winter season (OR 1.20, CI = 1.12-1.23), male gender (OR 1.14, CI = 1.10-1.17), and older age (OR 1.01, CI = 1.01-1.02). Mean ED charge was greater for patients who were packed ($1,473 vs. $1,048, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Several factors, including lower socioeconomic status, geographic location, and nontrauma hospital designation, predict use of nasal packing. These results raise concerns about potential treatment disparities that may result in increased patient morbidity and costs.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2C. Laryngoscope, 128:356-362, 2018.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) from 2009 to 2011.
METHODS: NEDS was queried for patient visits with a primary diagnosis of epistaxis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 784.7). Patient demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics were obtained. Predictors of nasal packing were determined by multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: There were 1,234,267 ED visits for epistaxis. The highest proportion of patients were seen in the winter (37.2%) at nontrauma hospitals (76.9%), and were discharged home (95.5%). Fifteen percent of patients were on long-term anticoagulation, 33% had hypertension, and 0.9% had a coagulopathy. Nasal packing was utilized in 243,268 patients (19.7%). Predictors strongly associated with nasal packing included lower socioeconomic quartile (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10-1.53), hospital located in the geographic South (OR 1.62, CI = 1.12-2.34) and Midwest (OR 1.85, P < 0.0001), and nontrauma hospital (OR 1.56, CI = 1.19-2.05). Other factors included long-term anticoagulation (OR 1.21, CI = 1.10-1.33), winter season (OR 1.20, CI = 1.12-1.23), male gender (OR 1.14, CI = 1.10-1.17), and older age (OR 1.01, CI = 1.01-1.02). Mean ED charge was greater for patients who were packed ($1,473 vs. $1,048, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Several factors, including lower socioeconomic status, geographic location, and nontrauma hospital designation, predict use of nasal packing. These results raise concerns about potential treatment disparities that may result in increased patient morbidity and costs.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2C. Laryngoscope, 128:356-362, 2018.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app