Epistaxis
Epistaxis - Summary
Epistaxis is bleeding from the nose, caused by damage to the blood vessels of the nasal mucosa.
Most epistaxis is self-limiting and harmless, and often the cause of damage to the blood vessels is not identified.
Local causes of damage to the blood vessels include trauma, inflammation, topical drugs, surgery, vascular causes (such as hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia, Wegener's granulomatosis), or tumours (such as squamous cell carcinoma).
More general causes of damage include hypertension; atherosclerosis; increased venous pressure from mitral stenosis; haematological disorders such as thrombocytopenia, leukaemia, and haemophilia; environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, or altitude; systemic drugs such as anticoagulants and antiplatelets; and excessive alcohol consumption.
Complications of epistaxis are rare, and include hypovolaemia, anaemia and complications from nasal packing treatment.
If the person is haemodynamically compromised, epistaxis should be managed as an emergency, and immediate transfer to hospital arranged.
If the person is haemodynamically stable, epistaxis can usually be managed with first aid measures: the person should sit with their upper body tilted forward and their mouth open; the soft part of the nose should be pinched firmly and held for 10–15 minutes.
If a posterior bleed is suspected (bleeding is profuse, from both nostrils, and the bleeding site cannot be identified on examination), admission to hospital may be necessary.
If bleeding stops with first aid measures, a topical antiseptic such as Naseptin® (chlorhexidine and neomycin) cream may be applied to prevent re-bleeding.
If bleeding does not stop after 10–15 minutes of pressure, nasal cautery or nasal packing (if available) may be used to stop the bleeding, otherwise immediate admission to Accident and Emergency is recommended
Investigations are rarely needed in primary care following acute epistaxis but may include:
A full blood count if bleeding has been heavy or recurrent, or anaemia is suspected.
Coagulation studies, only if a clotting diathesis is suspected or the person is on warfarin therapy.
Management of a person with recurrent epistaxis includes:
Topical antiseptic treatment such as Naseptin® (chlorhexidine and neomycin) cream to reduce crusting and vestibulitis, or
Nasal cautery (if available).
Referral to an ear, nose, and throat specialist if epistaxis is recurrent despite treatment, or there is a high risk of a serious underlying cause.
Have I got the right topic?
This CKS topic covers the management of epistaxis and recurrent epistaxis, including when to refer the person to secondary care.
This CKS topic does not cover ribbon packing or surgical techniques for treating epistaxis.
The target audience for this CKS topic is healthcare professionals working within the NHS in the UK, and providing first contact or primary health care.
How up-to-date is this topic?
How up-to-date is this topic?
Changes
April to August 2010 — this is a new CKS topic. The evidence-base has been reviewed in detail, and recommendations are clearly justified and transparently linked to the supporting evidence.
Update
New evidence
Evidence-based guidelines
No new evidence-based guidelines since 1 March 2010.
HTAs (Health Technology Assessments)
No new HTAs since 1 March 2010.
Economic appraisals
No new economic appraisals relevant to England since 1 March 2010.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
No new systematic review or meta-analysis since 1 March 2010.
Primary evidence
No new randomized controlled trials published in the major journals since 1 March 2010.
New policies
No new national policies or guidelines since 1 March 2010.
New safety alerts
No new safety alerts since 1 March 2010.
Changes in product availability
No changes in product availability since 1 March 2010.
Goals and outcome measures
Goals
To support primary healthcare professionals:
To offer appropriate first-aid advice for people with epistaxis
To manage epistaxis that has not stopped after adequate pressure has been applied
To appropriately admit or urgently refer people with acute epistaxis to secondary care
To appropriately refer people with recurrent epistaxis to secondary care
Background information
Definition
What is it?
Epistaxis is bleeding from the nose.
Epistaxis mostly (80–90%) originates from Little's area on the anterior nasal septum, which contains the Kiesselbach plexus of vessels [Crown and Criner, 2004; Schlosser, 2009].
Less commonly, epistaxis originates from branches of the sphenopalatine artery in the posterior nasal cavity [Pashen and Stevens, 2002; Wormald, 2002; Schlosser, 2009].
Causes
What causes it?
Blood vessels in the mucosa (particularly in Little's area) are superficial and therefore easily damaged, causing bleeding [Crown and Criner, 2004; Schlosser, 2009]. Most epistaxis is self-limiting and harmless, and the cause of damage to the blood vessels is not identified [Pope and Hobbs, 2005; Schlosser, 2009].
Local causes of damage to the blood vessels include:
Trauma — injury from nose-picking, nasal fractures, septal ulcers or perforations, foreign body, blunt trauma (such as falls in children).
Inflammation — infection (for example chronic sinusitis), allergic rhinosinusitis, nasal polyps.
Topical drugs — for example cocaine, topical decongestants.
Vascular — for example hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia, Wegener's granulomatosis.
Post-operative bleeding — for example following: ear, nose, and throat surgery; maxillofacial surgery; or ophthalmic surgery.
Tumours — benign (such as angiofibroma), malignant (such as squamous cell carcinoma). Older people are more likely to have epistaxis associated with cancer.
Nasal oxygen therapy — causes drying of the nasal mucosa.
More general causes of damage include:
Hypertension (although this is controversial).
Atherosclerosis.
Increased venous pressure from mitral stenosis.
Haematological conditions — such as thrombocytopenia, platelet dysfunction, and conditions such as leukaemia and haemophilia.
Environmental factors — temperature, humidity, altitude.
Systemic drugs — including anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents (for example aspirin, clopidogrel).
Excessive alcohol consumption.
[McGarry et al, 1994; Pashen and Stevens, 2002; Wormald, 2002; Crown and Criner, 2004; Kucik and Clenney, 2005; Pope and Hobbs, 2005]
Prevalence
How common is it?
Epistaxis is common.
Up to 60% of the population have experienced an episode of epistaxis, but only 6% have sought medical attention for it [Kucik and Clenney, 2005; Daudia et al, 2008].
The incidence of epistaxis changes with age.
Peaks in incidence occur in children younger than 10 years of age, and in adults older than 45 years of age [Kucik and Clenney, 2005; Pope and Hobbs, 2005; Schlosser, 2009].
Epistaxis in children younger than 2 years of age is unusual and may be associated with injury or serious illness [McIntosh et al, 2007; Paranjothy et al, 2009].
Posterior epistaxis is more common in older people compared with younger people [Schlosser, 2009].
Prognosis
What is the prognosis?
Most episodes of epistaxis are self-limiting and do not require medical treatment [Schlosser, 2009].
It is unusual for epistaxis to necessitate a transfusion, although (rarely) massive nasal bleeding can be fatal [Kucik and Clenney, 2005; Schlosser, 2009].
Complications
What are the complications?
Complications of bleeding (for example hypovolaemia and anaemia).
Complications of nasal packing [Kucik and Clenney, 2005; Schlosser, 2009].
Sinusitis.
Septal haematoma or abscess (due to traumatic packing).
Pressure necrosis (secondary to excessively tight packing).
Toxic shock syndrome (from prolonged packing).
Apnoeic episodes (associated with bilateral anterior or posterior nasal packs).
Management
Management
Scenario : Acute epistaxis: covers the assessment and management of acute epistaxis.
Scenario : Recurrent epistaxis: covers the assessment and management of recurrent episodes of epistaxis in people who are currently asymptomatic.
Scenario : Acute epistaxis
Scenario : Acute epistaxis
Overview
Overview of management for acute epistaxis
If the person is haemodynamically compromised, telephone 999 for an emergency ambulance and advise first aid measures while awaiting its arrival.
If the person is not haemodynamically compromised:
Advise first aid measures.
Blood loss.
The site of bleeding (which nostril, and if it is from the anterior or posterior nasal area).
What attempts have been made to stop the bleeding before seeking medical help.
Determine if there is a likely underlying cause or comorbid condition that may influence the decision to refer the person (for example warfarin therapy).
If bleeding stops with first aid measures, consider topical treatment.
If bleeding does not stop after 10–15 minutes of pressure and the appropriate expertise and facilities for cautery or packing are not available in primary care, send the person to the Accident and Emergency department immediately.
If bleeding does not stop after 10–15 minutes of pressure and the appropriate expertise and facilities are available in primary care, consider:
Nasal cautery — if the bleeding point can be seen.
Nasal packing — if nasal cautery is ineffective or the bleeding point cannot be seen.
Consider whether admission is warranted.
Consider referral to an ear, nose, and throat specialist if epistaxis is recurrent despite treatment, or there is a high risk of a serious underlying cause.
Offer self-care advice after the bleeding has stopped.
Basis for recommendation
Basis for recommendation
The evidence supporting these recommendations is discussed in the relevant text for each section.
First aid measures
What first aid measures should I advise for acute epistaxis?
Advise the person to:
Sit with their upper body tilted forward and their mouth open. They should avoid lying down, unless they are feeling faint.
Leaning forward decreases blood flow through the nasopharynx, allows spitting out of blood, and minimizes swallowing blood that drains into the pharynx.
Pinch the cartilaginous (soft) part of the nose firmly and hold it for 10–15 minutes without releasing the pressure, breathing through their mouth.
A common misconception is that compression of the nasal bones will help stop bleeding.
Basis for recommendation
Basis for recommendation
CKS found no trial-based evidence on first-aid measures for epistaxis. These recommendations are based on expert opinion in review articles [Pashen and Stevens, 2002; Aneeshkumar et al, 2005; Leong et al, 2005; Pope and Hobbs, 2005; Schlosser, 2009].
Assessment
How should I assess a person with acute epistaxis?
Assess the person's airway, breathing, pulse, and blood pressure.
If any are compromised, telephone 999 for an ambulance and advise first aid measures while awaiting its arrival.
Usually, the person's airway, breathing, pulse, and blood pressure are not compromised. If the person is otherwise well, ask:
When the bleeding started, and from which side.
How much blood has been lost. This is difficult to estimate, but establish whether the bleeding is light or heavy. If bleeding is heavy, ask the person how many cups (each equates to approximately 250 mL) they think they have lost. Significant blood loss may necessitate admission to hospital.
Whether a temporary pack (such as cotton wool) has been used before seeking medical help. These are not always easily visible, and formal nasal packing can push foreign bodies further into the nose.
About any previous episodes of epistaxis and how they were treated.
Examine both nasal passages (ideally with adequate lighting and a nasal speculum).
If the nose is still bleeding, advise the person to blow their nose to remove clots (several big blows may be required). Old blood is usually darker and runs out in a gush with formed clots, then stops. Fresh bleeding is bright red and drips steadily when the person leans forward.
Look for a bleeding point. Bleeding points which have stopped look like a small red dot (less than 1 mm).
Suspect a posterior bleed if bleeding is profuse, from both nostrils, and the bleeding site cannot be identified on speculum examination.
Determine if there is an underlying cause, particularly in children younger than 2 years of age as epistaxis is unusual in this group.
Laboratory investigations are not usually required unless an underlying cause is suspected.
A full blood count should be considered if bleeding has been heavy or recurrent, or anaemia is suspected.
Coagulation studies should be requested only if a clotting diathesis is suspected or an INR (international normalized ratio) is required to determine if warfarin treatment needs adjusting.
Basis for recommendation
Basis for recommendation
CKS found no trial-based evidence on the assessment of acute epistaxis.
Emergency assessment
This recommendation is based on expert opinion in review articles [Pashen and Stevens, 2002; Crown and Criner, 2004; Daudia et al, 2008].
History
The recommendations on what to ask people with acute epistaxis are based on expert opinion in review articles [Wormald, 2002; Crown and Criner, 2004; Aneeshkumar et al, 2005; Kucik and Clenney, 2005; Leong et al, 2005; Schlosser, 2009].
Examination
These recommendations are based on expert opinion in review articles [Wormald, 2002; Crown and Criner, 2004; Schlosser, 2009].
Investigations
These recommendations are based on expert opinion in review articles [Crown and Criner, 2004; Schlosser, 2009].
Identifying an underlying cause
How should I identify an underlying cause for acute epistaxis?
Determine whether an underlying cause is likely, by asking about:
A history of surgery or recent trauma (consider the possibility of non-accidental injury).
Symptoms suggestive of a tumour (benign or malignant) — including nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, facial pain, or evidence of cranial neuropathy (for example facial numbness or double vision).
Current medications (for example aspirin and warfarin, nasally-administered drugs).
If the person is taking warfarin, check the INR (international normalized ratio) or admit to hospital if bleeding is difficult to control.
Conditions predisposing to bleeding (such as haemophilia or leukaemia).
Family history of bleeding disorders.
Features of hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia that may be evident on examination include telangiectasia on the lips, mucous membranes, and fingers.
Environmental factors (such as humidity and allergens).
Have a low threshold for referral in children younger than 2 years of age (underlying cause likely).
Basis for recommendation
Basis for recommendation
Determining an underlying cause
CKS found no trial-based evidence on identifying an underlying cause in people with epistaxis. The recommendation to ask about possible underlying causes is based on, or extrapolated from, expert opinion in review articles [Pashen and Stevens, 2002; Wormald, 2002; Crown and Criner, 2004; Kucik and Clenney, 2005; Leong et al, 2005; Daudia et al, 2008; Schlosser, 2009].
An underlying cause is more likely in children up to 2 years of age
The recommendation to consider an underlying cause in children up to 2 years of age is based on a retrospective analysis of Accident and Emergency department attendance records and hospital admissions in children in this age group. This found that epistaxis is rare in children up to 2 years of age, and is often associated with injury or serious illness [McIntosh et al, 2007].
However, a retrospective analysis of hospital admissions in children up to 2 years of age concluded that an association between epistaxis and physical abuse is rare in this group [Paranjothy et al, 2009].
Topical treatment
What topical treatment should I advise for acute epistaxis?
If acute epistaxis settles with first aid measures, consider applying a topical antiseptic preparation, particularly in children for whom cautery is not an option.
Prescribe Naseptin® (chlorhexidine and neomycin) cream first-line. Advise that the cream should be applied to the nostrils four times daily for 10 days. If compliance is a problem, experts suggest it can be used twice daily for up to 2 weeks.
Do not prescribe Naseptin® for people known to be allergic to peanut as it contains arachis oil (peanut oil).
If the person is allergic to peanut or neomycin, consider prescribing mupirocin nasal ointment. Advise that it should be applied to the nostrils two to three times a day for 5–7 days.
Basis for recommendation
Basis for recommendation
CKS found no trial-based evidence on the use of topical treatments for a single episode of acute epistaxis.
This recommendation is based on anecdotal evidence from CKS expert reviewers who suggest that, as well as their antimicrobial action, topical treatments can act as a barrier to further trauma and preserve the humidity of the lining of the nose.
Nasal cautery
How should I perform nasal cautery for acute epistaxis?
Consider nasal cautery in primary care if:
First aid measures have not worked, and
The appropriate expertise and facilities are available (good lighting, topical anaesthetic spray, and nasal speculum).
Prior to cautery
Ask the person to blow their nose to clear any clots and allow local anaesthetic to be applied. This may restart the bleeding.
Use topical local anaesthetic spray, preferably with a vasoconstrictor (such as lidocaine with phenylephrine — Co-phenylcaine®) prior to cauterizing the area. Wait for 3–4 minutes for the full effect. The vasoconstrictor may stop the bleeding, but once the effects have worn off the bleeding may start again.
To cauterize the bleeding point
Identify the bleeding point — it looks like a small red dot (less than 1 mm) and may not be actively bleeding.
Lightly apply the silver nitrate stick to the bleeding point for 3–10 seconds, until a grey-white colour develops.
Only cauterize one side of the septum to avoid nasal septal perforation.
Avoid touching areas which do not need treatment (for example facial skin, nasal alae).
After cautery
Dab the cauterized area with a clean cotton bud to remove excess chemical or blood.
Apply antibiotic ointment to the area.
Use Naseptin® (chlorhexidine and neomycin) cream first-line, applied to the nostrils four times daily for 10 days. Do not prescribe Naseptin® for people known to be allergic to peanut as it contains arachis oil (peanut oil).
If the person is allergic to peanut or neomycin, consider using mupirocin nasal ointment. This should be applied to the nostrils two to three times a day for 5–7 days.
Do not routinely pack the affected side.
Offer self-care advice.
Basis for recommendation
Basis for recommendation
Nasal cautery
CKS found no trial-based evidence on how to cauterize bleeding nasal vessels to control acute epistaxis, therefore this recommendation is based on expert opinion in review articles on the management of epistaxis [Pashen and Stevens, 2002; Wormald, 2002; Crown and Criner, 2004; Kucik and Clenney, 2005; Leong et al, 2005; Pope and Hobbs, 2005].
Topical treatments
CKS found no evidence on the use of topical treatments on their own for the treatment of acute epistaxis. Low-quality evidence on the use of topical treatments for recurrent epistaxis is inconclusive.
The recommendation to use Naseptin® antiseptic cream after nasal cautery is based on expert opinion [Crown and Criner, 2004]. The suggested dose regimen is from the manufacturer's Summary of Product Characteristics [ABPI Medicines Compendium, 2009].
Mupirocin nasal ointment is not recommended as first-line treatment because experts suggest it is generally held in reserve for the elimination of staphylococci in resistant cases [BNF 59, 2010]. The suggested dose regimen is from the manufacturer's Summary of Product Characteristics [ABPI Medicines Compendium, 2010].
Nasal packing
How should I perform nasal packing for acute epistaxis?
Consider nasal packing in primary care if:
Nasal cautery has been ineffective or the bleeding point cannot be seen, and
The appropriate expertise and facilities are available (good lighting, topical anaesthetic spray, and nasal speculum).
Anaesthetize the nasal cavity with topical local anaesthetic spray, preferably with a vasoconstrictor (such as lidocaine with phenylephrine — Co-phenylcaine®), if this has not already been done. Wait for 3–4 minutes for the full effect.
The decision concerning which product to use is based on availability, cost, and preference. The available products include:
Nasal tampons (for example Merocel®) — effective and easy to use.
Inflatable packs (for example Rapid-Rhino®) — effective, and may be more comfortable to insert and remove than nasal tampons. They may also be easier for the healthcare professional to use than nasal tampons.
Ribbon gauze impregnated with Vaseline® or bismuth-iodoform paraffin paste — packing with ribbon gauze is not recommended in primary care without specific training.
Insert the packing according to the manufacturers instructions.
Pack the person's nostril whilst they are sitting with their head tilted forwards and holding a receptacle allowing them to spit out blood, and breathing through their mouth.
Secure the pack (for example Merocel® packs have a string attached which can be taped to the cheek) and ensure there is no pressure on the cartilage around the nostril as this can cause a cosmetic defect.
Check the oropharynx for signs of bleeding from the back of the nose. If bleeding is seen, consider packing the other side to increase pressure on the bleeding vessel.
Admit the person to hospital for observation, preferably to an ear, nose, and throat ward.
Basis for recommendation
Basis for recommendation
These recommendations are mainly based on expert opinion in review articles [Pashen and Stevens, 2002; Wormald, 2002; Leong et al, 2005; Pope and Hobbs, 2005; Schlosser, 2009].
Choice of pack
Evidence from randomized trials consistently shows that inflatable nasal packs and nasal tampons have similar efficacy for controlling bleeding in people with epistaxis. However, when compared with nasal tampons, inflatable nasal packs are more comfortable to insert and remove, and are easier to use [Badran et al, 2005; Singer et al, 2005; Moumoulidis et al, 2006].
Compared with ribbon packing, nasal tampons are considered by experts to be more useful in the primary care setting [Kucik and Clenney, 2005]. For acute epistaxis, without specific training, packing with ribbon gauze can result in trauma to the septum and inferior turbinate [Wormald, 2002].
Referral once the nasal pack is inserted
The recommendation to admit the person to hospital once the nasal pack is inserted is based on expert opinion in a review article [Wormald, 2002] and the risk of complications.
Referral
When should I refer a person with acute epistaxis?
Admit the person to hospital if:
Epistaxis continues despite efforts to stop the bleeding.
Bleeding from the posterior area of the nose is suspected.
A nasal pack has been inserted in primary care.
Consider admission to hospital if the person is elderly or has a comorbid condition (such as coronary artery disease, severe hypertension, clotting disorder, or significant anaemia).
Consider referral to an ear, nose, and throat specialist if the person has recurrent episodes and is at high risk of having a serious underlying cause. Use clinical judgement and consider referral in the following groups:
Males 12–20 years of age — angiofibroma is possible (but rare).
Middle-aged people of Chinese origin — due to the high incidence of nasopharyngeal cancer.
People older than 50 years of age — as nasal, sinus, and nasopharyngeal cancers are more common (although they usually present with associated symptoms).
People with any symptoms suggestive of cancer — such as nasal obstruction, facial pain, hearing loss, eye symptoms (proptosis or double vision), or palpable neck glands.
People with a family history of hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia and suggestive features upon examination — telangiectasia on the lips, mucous membranes, and fingers.
People with occupational exposure to wood dust or chemicals.
Consider referral to a paediatrician for children younger than 2 years of age who present with epistaxis.
Basis for recommendation
Basis for recommendation
CKS found no trial-based evidence on referral for acute epistaxis, therefore these recommendations are based on expert opinion in review articles [Pashen and Stevens, 2002; Wormald, 2002; Crown and Criner, 2004; Kucik and Clenney, 2005; Leong et al, 2005; Pope and Hobbs, 2005].
The criteria for people at risk of a serious underlying cause are based on expert opinion in a review article [Wormald, 2002].
One review found that epistaxis is rare in children younger than 2 years of age, and is often associated with injury or serious illness [McIntosh et al, 2007].
Secondary care treatments
What secondary care treatments are available for epistaxis?
Secondary care treatments for acute epistaxis include:
Resuscitation — this may include transfusion to replace blood volume and provide coagulation factors.
Formal packing (may be under general anaesthetic).
Endoscopic assessment and electrocautery.
Examination under anaesthesia and surgical intervention (such as diathermy, septal surgery, arterial ligation, laser treatment).
Radiological arterial embolization.
Intravenous or oral tranexamic acid.
Basis for recommendation
Basis for recommendation
This information is based on expert opinion in review articles [Pashen and Stevens, 2002; Wormald, 2002; Crown and Criner, 2004; Kucik and Clenney, 2005; Pope and Hobbs, 2005].
Self-care advice
What self-care advice should I provide after an episode of epistaxis?
For 24 hours after bleeding, where practical, advise the person to avoid activities which may increase the risk of rebleeding. These include:
Blowing or picking the nose.
Heavy lifting.
Strenuous exercise.
Lying flat.
Drinking alcohol or hot drinks — as these can cause the nasal blood vessels to dilate and increase the risk of bleeding.
If the nose has been cauterized, the person should avoid blowing their nose for a few hours to prevent staining of the nostril.
If bleeding restarts and does not respond to first aid measures, the person should seek medical advice.
Basis for recommendation
Basis for recommendation
CKS found no trial-based evidence on self-care advice for people with epistaxis. These recommendations are based on expert opinion in review articles [Pashen and Stevens, 2002; Crown and Criner, 2004; Pope and Hobbs, 2005].
Scenario : Recurrent epistaxis
Scenario : Recurrent epistaxis
Overview
Overview of management for recurrent epistaxis
Assess the person and, if possible, identify any underlying cause.
Offer advice on first aid measures and self-care advice for when an acute episode occurs. See Scenario : Acute epistaxis.
Discuss management options for recurrent epistaxis.
Refer the person if treatment in primary care is ineffective, or if a serious underlying cause is suspected.
Basis for recommendation
Basis for recommendation
The evidence supporting these recommendations is discussed in the relevant text for each section.
Assessment
How should I assess a person with recurrent epistaxis?
Ask the person about:
Which side the bleeding occurs.
How much blood is lost during an episode. This is difficult to estimate, but establish whether the bleeding is light or heavy. If bleeding is heavy, ask the person how many cups (each equates to approximately 250 mL) they think they have lost.
How previous episodes of epistaxis have been treated. Mild episodes usually stop with first aid measures. The need for cautery or packing indicates a more severe bleed.
Examine both nasal passages (ideally with adequate lighting and a nasal speculum).
Look for a bleeding point. Bleeding points which have stopped look like a small red dot (less than 1 mm).
Check for a nasal tumour.
Determine if there is an underlying cause, particularly in children younger than 2 years of age as epistaxis is unusual in this group.
Laboratory investigations are not usually required unless an underlying cause is suspected.
A full blood count should be considered if bleeding has been heavy or recurrent, or anaemia is suspected.
Coagulation studies should be requested only if a clotting diathesis is suspected or an INR (international normalized ratio) is required to determine if warfarin treatment needs adjusting.
Basis for recommendation
Basis for recommendation
CKS found no trial-based evidence on the assessment of recurrent epistaxis.
History
The recommendations on what to ask people with recurrent epistaxis are based on expert opinion in review articles [Wormald, 2002; Crown and Criner, 2004; Aneeshkumar et al, 2005; Kucik and Clenney, 2005; Leong et al, 2005; Schlosser, 2009].
Examination
These recommendations are based on expert opinion in review articles [Wormald, 2002; Crown and Criner, 2004; Schlosser, 2009].
Investigations
These recommendations are based on expert opinion in review articles [Crown and Criner, 2004; Schlosser, 2009].
Identifying an underlying cause
How should I identify an underlying cause for recurrent epistaxis?
Determine whether an underlying cause is likely, by asking about:
Symptoms suggestive of a tumour (benign or malignant) — including nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, facial pain, or evidence of cranial neuropathy (for example facial numbness or double vision).
Current medications (for example aspirin and warfarin, nasally-administered drugs).
If the person is taking warfarin, check the INR (international normalized ratio).
Conditions predisposing to bleeding (such as haemophilia or leukaemia).
Family history of bleeding disorders.
Environmental factors (such as humidity and allergens).
Have a low threshold for referral in children younger than 2 years of age (underlying cause likely).
Basis for recommendation
Basis for recommendation
Determining an underlying cause
CKS found no trial-based evidence on identifying an underlying cause in people with epistaxis. The recommendation to ask about possible underlying causes is based on, or extrapolated from, expert opinion in review articles [Pashen and Stevens, 2002; Wormald, 2002; Crown and Criner, 2004; Kucik and Clenney, 2005; Leong et al, 2005; Daudia et al, 2008; Schlosser, 2009].
An underlying cause is more likely in children up to 2 years of age
The recommendation to consider an underlying cause in children up to 2 years of age is based on a retrospective analysis of Accident and Emergency department attendance records and hospital admissions in children in this age group. This found that epistaxis is rare in children up to 2 years of age, and is often associated with injury or serious illness [McIntosh et al, 2007].
However, a retrospective analysis of hospital admissions in children up to 2 years of age concluded that an association between epistaxis and physical abuse is rare in this group [Paranjothy et al, 2009].
Management
How should I manage recurrent epistaxis?
If the person is not at high risk of having a serious cause of epistaxis, discuss treatment options for recurrent epistaxis.
Topical treatment with antiseptic cream to reduce crusting and vestibulitis. This may be particularly useful in children, as it is easier to tolerate than nasal cautery.
Prescribe Naseptin® cream first-line. It should be applied to the nostrils four times daily for 10 days (if compliance is a problem, experts suggest it can be used twice daily for up to 2 weeks). Do not prescribe Naseptin® for people known to be allergic to peanuts as it contains arachis oil (peanut oil).
If the person is allergic to peanuts or neomycin, consider prescribing mupirocin nasal ointment. Apply to the nostrils two to three times a day for 5–7 days.
Nasal cautery is similarly effective to Naseptin® antiseptic cream, but may be more uncomfortable. Consider it for use in primary care only if:
The appropriate expertise and facilities (good lighting, topical anaesthetic spray, and nasal speculum) are available.
The bleeding point can be identified.
It can be tolerated (for example adults and older children, but not younger children).
If epistaxis does not improve with antiseptic cream or nasal cautery, consider referral.
Basis for recommendation
Basis for recommendation
Topical treatments
The recommendation to consider Naseptin® antiseptic cream is based on expert opinion in review articles [Pashen and Stevens, 2002; Wormald, 2002; Pope and Hobbs, 2005]. The suggested dose regimen is that suggested by the manufacturer's Summary of Product Characteristics [ABPI Medicines Compendium, 2009]. It was the opinion of CKS expert reviewers that a twice-daily regimen for up to 2 weeks is acceptable.
The available evidence is of low quality and is inconclusive as to the effectiveness of topical treatments for recurrent epistaxis. CKS found no placebo-controlled trials, and most studies included only children. The results of studies were not statistically significant.
Mupirocin nasal ointment is not recommended first-line because it is generally held in reserve for the elimination of staphylococci in resistant cases [BNF 59, 2010]. The suggested dose regimen is from the manufacturer's Summary of Product Characteristics [ABPI Medicines Compendium, 2010].
Nasal cautery
The recommendation to consider nasal cautery for recurrent epistaxis is based on low-quality evidence from two small trials. These found that Naseptin® antiseptic cream and silver nitrate cautery are of similar efficacy in improving symptoms of recurrent epistaxis. One study found a statistically significant improvement in symptoms with silver nitrate cautery followed by antiseptic nasal cream compared with sham cautery followed by antiseptic nasal cream [Murthy et al, 1999; Burton and Doree, 2004].
Referral
When should I refer a person with recurrent epistaxis?
Refer the person to an ear, nose, and throat specialist if:
Epistaxis episodes do not settle with the treatments available in primary care — further investigation and treatment in secondary care may be required.
The person has recurrent episodes and is at high risk of having a serious underlying cause. Clinical judgement is required, for example consider referral for:
Males 12–20 years of age — angiofibroma is possible (but rare).
Middle-aged people of chinese origin — due to the high incidence of nasopharyngeal cancer.
People older than 50 years of age — as nasal, sinus, and nasopharyngeal cancers are more common (although they usually present with associated symptoms).
People with any symptoms suggestive of cancer — such as nasal obstruction, facial pain, hearing loss, eye symptoms (proptosis or double vision), or palpable neck glands.
People with a family history of hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia and suggestive features upon examination — telangiectasia on the lips, mucous membranes, and fingers.
People with occupational exposure to wood dust or chemicals.
Basis for recommendation
Basis for recommendation
CKS found no trial-based evidence on referral for recurrent epistaxis, therefore these recommendations are based on expert opinion in review articles [Makura et al, 2002; Wormald, 2002; Schlosser, 2009].
The criteria for people at risk of a serious underlying cause are based on opinion in a review article [Wormald, 2002].
Evidence
Evidence
Supporting evidence
This section summarizes the evidence supporting the recommendations on the treatment of epistaxis in primary care.
Topical treatments - acute
Evidence on topical treatments for acute epistaxis
CKS found no trial-based evidence on topical treatments for acute epistaxis.
Topical treatments - recurrent
Evidence on topical treatments for recurrent epistaxis
Low-quality evidence is inconclusive as to the effectiveness of topical treatments for recurrent epistaxis. CKS found no placebo-controlled trials, and most studies included only children. The results of the studies were not statistically significant.
A Cochrane systematic review of interventions for recurrent idiopathic epistaxis in children (search date: October 2007) found three trials of topical treatment [Burton and Doree, 2004]; none were placebo-controlled.
One randomized, single-blinded trial compared Naseptin® antiseptic cream (neomycin 0.5% and chlorhexidine 0.1%), twice daily to both nostrils for 4 weeks, with no treatment.
Of the 103 participants, 51 were allocated to the treatment group and 52 to the control group.
The children completed 4 weeks' treatment and were followed up 4 weeks later.
An intent-to-treat analysis was carried out (a large number of children were lost to follow up). The number of children who continued to experience epistaxis episodes was 21/51 (45%) in the treatment group and 29/52 (56%) in the control group. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.14).
The authors of the study commented that this result may be because people were more likely to not return for follow up if their symptoms had settled, therefore biasing the results away from showing a significant difference between treatment and no treatment.
The second trial compared Vaseline® petroleum jelly with no treatment.
The 105 children were randomized into two groups. One group applied Vaseline® petroleum jelly to both nostrils twice daily for 4 weeks, and monitored the number of episodes of epistaxis for a further 4 weeks. The other group had no treatment, but was advised to monitor bleeding during the same 4-week period.
In the treatment group, 37/51 (73%) children had an episode of epistaxis after treatment, compared with 35/53 (66%) with no treatment. This result was not statistically significant (p = 0.47).
The third trial compared Naseptin® antiseptic cream with silver nitrate cautery.
The 48 children were randomized (by alternate allocation) to Naseptin® antiseptic cream, applied to both nostrils twice daily for 4 weeks, or silver nitrate nasal cautery.
Episodes of bleeding in the 4 weeks immediately following completion of treatment were recorded.
In the Naseptin® group, 11/24 (45%) of the children had episodes of epistaxis following treatment. In the nasal cautery group, 9/24 (38%) children bled following treatment. The difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.56).
CKS identified a non-blinded prospective study with a number of methodological weaknesses that included 88 children (2–16 years of age) and used a questionnaire to assess the effectiveness of nasal cautery and/or antiseptic nasal cream (Naseptin®) [Makura et al, 2002].
Nasal cautery plus Naseptin® cream was used to treat 72% (63/88) of children; Naseptin® cream alone was used for 24% (21/88). Three children had epistaxis related to blood dyscrasia, and one child was listed for cautery under general anaesthesia.
Only 65% of parents responded, but of those that did, 37% said their child no longer had epistaxis. For the children whose epistaxis continued, 82% of parents reported fewer episodes. It was not possible to compare treatments from the published data.
Three-quarters of parents who responded thought that the Naseptin® cream had been useful.
Nasal cautery - acute
Evidence on nasal cautery for acute epistaxis
CKS found no trial-based evidence on nasal cautery for acute epistaxis.
Nasal cautery - recurrent
Evidence on nasal cautery for recurrent epistaxis
Weak evidence from two small trials suggests that Naseptin® antiseptic cream and silver nitrate cautery are of similar efficacy in improving symptoms of recurrent epistaxis. One study found a statistically significant improvement in symptoms with silver nitrate cautery followed by antiseptic nasal cream compared with sham cautery followed by antiseptic nasal cream.
A Cochrane systematic review of interventions for recurrent idiopathic epistaxis in children (search date: October 2007) found one trial of nasal cautery [Burton and Doree, 2004].
The trial compared Naseptin® antiseptic cream with silver nitrate cautery.
The 48 children were randomized (by alternate allocation) to Naseptin® antiseptic cream, applied to both nostrils twice daily for 4 weeks, or silver nitrate nasal cautery.
Episodes of bleeding in the 4 weeks immediately following completion of treatment were recorded.
In the Naseptin® group, 11/24 (45%) of the children had episodes of epistaxis following treatment. Of the children who had nasal cautery, 9/24 (38%) bled following treatment. The difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.56).
CKS identified a further randomized study which was not included in the Cochrane systematic review (because it included adults) [Murthy et al, 1999].
The 64 participants were randomly allocated to two groups. The first group used Naseptin® antiseptic cream twice daily for 2 weeks, and the second group underwent silver nitrate nasal cautery followed by Naseptin® antiseptic cream twice daily for 2 weeks.
2 months after the initial clinic visit, a questionnaire survey was carried out. Three-quarters of people involved in the study responded.
Complete resolution of symptoms was reported by 64% (14/22) of people treated with Naseptin® antiseptic cream alone, and 57% (16/28) of people receiving combination treatment.
A decrease in the frequency of symptoms was reported by 27% (6/22) of people in the Naseptin® antiseptic cream group, and 32% (9/28) in the combination treatment group.
These results were not statistically significant (p = 0.76).
A double-blind, randomized controlled trial of management of recurrent epistaxis in children was published subsequently to the Cochrane systematic review [Calder et al, 2009].
A total of 109 people were randomized to either silver nitrate cautery or sham cautery (with the inactive end of the cautery stick). Both regimens were followed by antiseptic cream for 4 weeks.
Results were available for 85% of people starting the trial. In the cautery group, 46% (21/46) had no bleeding in the 4 weeks before follow up. In the sham cautery group 29.8% (14/47) had no bleeding. This result was not statistically significant (p = 0.114).
Of the children receiving cautery, 91% (42/46) reported an improvement in their symptoms; compared with 70% (33/47) of the sham cautery group (p = 0.01). The number needed to treat was 4.7.
Study limitations were noted. Blinding problems were seen in the control group (some people noticed that the 'wrong' end of the cautery stick was being used). Also, some children had received antiseptic nasal cream before entering the study.
One person experienced an adverse effect (rash with the antiseptic nasal cream).
A non-blinded prospective study with a number of methodological weaknesses included 88 children (2–16 years of age) and used a questionnaire to assess the effectiveness of nasal cautery and/or antiseptic nasal cream (Naseptin®) [Makura et al, 2002].
Nasal cautery plus Naseptin® cream was used to treat 72% (63/88) of the children; Naseptin® cream alone was used for 24% (21/88).
Only 65% of parents responded, but of those that did, 37% said their child no longer had epistaxis. For the children whose epistaxis continued, 82% of parents reported fewer episodes. It was not possible to compare treatments from the published data.
Three-quarters of parents who responded thought that the Naseptin® cream had been useful.
Nasal packing
Evidence on nasal packing for acute epistaxis
Evidence from randomized trials consistently shows that inflatable nasal packs and nasal tampons have similar efficacy for controlling bleeding in people with epistaxis. However, when compared with nasal tampons, inflatable nasal packs are more comfortable to insert and remove, and are easier to use.
A randomized controlled trial comparing Merocel® and Rapid-Rhino® packing for anterior epistaxis included 52 people whose bleeding had not responded to digital pressure or nasal cautery [Badran et al, 2005].
Treatment was with either Merocel® or Rapid-Rhino® nasal packs. A number of outcomes were measured using visual analogue scales.
The results were:
Control of bleeding — similar for both packs (not statistically significant).
Discomfort on insertion (0 = best, 10 = worst) — 6.9 with Merocel® and 5.0 with Rapid-Rhino® (p = 0.01).
Discomfort on removal (0 = best, 10 = worst) — 4.6 with Merocel® and 3.4 with Rapid-Rhino® (p = 0.05).
Ease of insertion for the clinician (0 = easiest, 3 = most difficult) — 1.7 with Merocel® and 0.9 with Rapid-Rhino® (p = 0.0003).
Ease of removal for the clinician (0 = easiest, 3 = most difficult) — 1.4 with Merocel® and 0.4 with Rapid-Rhino® (p < 0.0001).
A prospective randomized study of 42 people compared Merocel® and Rapid-Rhino® nasal packs [Moumoulidis et al, 2006]. Participants were given local anaesthetic to the nasal cavity prior to packing, and packs were left in place for 24–48 hours before removal. The results were:
Control of bleeding — 81% (17/21) of people treated with Merocel® and 76% (16/21) of people treated with Rapid-Rhino® reported that epistaxis was controlled.
Discomfort on insertion (11-point pain scale score; 0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable) — 6.47 with Merocel® and 3.85 with Rapid-Rhino® (p < 0.001).
Discomfort on removal (11-point pain scale score; 0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable) — 5.04 with Merocel® and 2.47 with Rapid-Rhino® (p < 0.001).
People treated with both types of packs tolerated them well. With the person acting as their own control, visual analogue scale scores (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable) for discomfort with pack in-situ were 2.28 with Merocel® and 2.33 with Rapid-Rhino®. There was no statistically significant difference between the two packs (p = 0.979).
A prospective randomized trial of 40 people compared Rapid-Rhino® inflatable packs and Rhino-Rocket® nasal tampons [Singer et al, 2005]. Participants were given local anaesthetic to the nasal cavity prior to packing, and packs were left in place for 24–72 hours before removal. All participants were given prophylactic antibiotics and a nasal decongestant if no contraindications were present. The results were:
Control of bleeding — similar for both groups. Ninety percent (18/20) of people treated with Rapid-Rhino® inflatable packs and 90% (18/20) of people treated with Rhino-Rocket® nasal tampons reported that bleeding stopped (relative risk 1.0, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.2).
Discomfort on insertion (100 mm pain scale score; 0 = best, 100 = worst) — 30 mm (95% CI 18 to 41) for Rapid-Rhino® inflatable packs and 48 mm (95% CI 34 to 61) for Rhino-Rocket® nasal tampon.
Discomfort on removal (100 mm pain scale score; 0 = best, 100 = worst) — 11 mm (95% CI 1 to 21) for Rapid-Rhino® inflatable packs and 23 mm (95% CI 13 to 33) for Rhino-Rocket® nasal tampon.
Recurrence of bleeding after pack removal — 6% (1/20) of people treated with Rapid-Rhino® inflatable packs and 39% (7/39) treated with Rhino-Rocket® nasal tampon experienced a recurrence of bleeding (relative risk 0.2, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.3). This result was not statistically significant.
For the healthcare professional, Rapid-Rhino® inflatable packs were easier to insert (relative risk 0.7, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2) and remove (relative risk 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8) than Rhino-Rocket® nasal tampons.
Search strategy
Scope of search
A literature search was conducted for guidelines, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials on primary care management of epistaxis.
Search dates
Dates not restricted – March 2010
Key search terms
Various combinations of searches were carried out. The terms listed below are the core search terms that were used for Medline and these were adapted for other databases. Further details are available on request.
epistaxis/, nose bleed$.tw, nosebleed$.tw, epistaxis.tw
mupirocin/, mupirocin.tw, bactroban.tw, neomycin/, neomycin.tw, naseptin.tw, chlorhexidine/, chlorhexidine.tw
tranexamic acid/, tranexamic acid.tw
Table 1. Key to search terms.| Search commands | Explanation |
|---|---|
| / | indicates a MeSh subject heading with all subheadings selected |
| .tw | indicates a search for a term in the title or abstract |
| exp | indicates that the MeSH subject heading was exploded to include the narrower, more specific terms beneath it in the MeSH tree |
| $ | indicates that the search term was truncated (e.g. wart$ searches for wart and warts) |
Sources of guidelines
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)
National Guidelines Clearinghouse
British Columbia Medical Association
Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement
Guidelines International Network
National Library of Guidelines
National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia)
University of Michigan Medical School
Michigan Quality Improvement Consortium
National Resource for Infection Control
NHS Scotland National Patient Pathways
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
UK Ambulance Service Clinical Practice Guidelines
RefHELP NHS Lothian Referral Guidelines
Medline (with guideline filter)
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
NHS Plus (occupational health practice)
Sources of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Systematic reviews
Protocols
Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects
Medline (with systematic review filter)
EMBASE (with systematic review filter)
Sources of health technology assessments and economic appraisals
NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
NHS Economic Evaluations
Health Technology Assessments
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment
Sources of randomized controlled trials
Central Register of Controlled Trials
Medline (with randomized controlled trial filter)
EMBASE (with randomized controlled trial filter)
Sources of evidence based reviews and evidence summaries
DynaMed
Central Services Agency COMPASS Therapeutic Notes
Sources of national policy
Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC)
Sources of medicines information
The following sources are used by CKS pharmacists and are not necessarily searched by CKS information specialists for all topics. Some of these resources are not freely available and require subscriptions to access content.
British National Formulary (BNF)
electronic Medicines Compendium (eMC)
European Medicines Agency (EMEA)
References
ABPI Medicines Compendium (2009) Summary of product characteristics for Naseptin nasal cream. Electronic Medicines Compendium..Datapharm Communications Ltd.www.medicines.org.uk [Free Full-text]
ABPI Medicines Compendium (2010) Summary of product characteristics for Bactroban nasal ointment 2%. Electronic Medicines Compendium..Datapharm Communications Ltd.www.medicines.org.uk [Free Full-text]
Aneeshkumar, M.K., Osman, E., Shahab, R. and Roland, N.J. (2005) Look before you pack: key point in epistaxis management. Emergency Medicine Journal 22(12), 912-913. [Abstract] [Free Full-text]
Badran, K., Malik, T.H., Belloso, A. and Timms, M.S. (2005) Randomized controlled trial comparing Merocel and RapidRhino packing in the management of anterior epistaxis. Clinical Otolaryngology 30(4), 333-337. [Abstract]
BNF 59 (2010) British National Formulary. 59th edn. London: British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.
Burton, M.J. and Doree, C. (2004) Interventions for recurrent idiopathic epistaxis (nosebleeds) in children (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library.Issue 1.John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.www.thecochranelibrary.com [Free Full-text]
Calder, N., Kang, S., Fraser, L. et al. (2009) A double-blind randomized controlled trial of management of recurrent nosebleeds in children. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 140(5), 670-674. [Abstract]
Crown, L.A. and Criner, R.D. (2004) Epistaxis: a practical approach to treatment. Patient Care 38(4), 34-37.
Daudia, A., Jaiswal, V. and Jones, N.S. (2008) Guidelines for the management of idiopathic epistaxis in adults: how we do it. Clinical Otolaryngology 33(6), 618-620.
Kucik, C.J. and Clenney, T. (2005) Management of epistaxis. American Family Physician 71(2), 305-311. [Abstract] [Free Full-text]
Leong, S.C., Roe, R.J. and Karkanevatos, A. (2005) No frills management of epistaxis. Emergency Medicine Journal 22(7), 470-472. [Abstract] [Free Full-text]
Makura, Z.G., Porter, G.C. and McCormick, M.S. (2002) Paediatric epistaxis: Alder Hey experience. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 116(11), 903-906. [Abstract]
McGarry, G.W., Gatehouse, S. and Hinnie, J. (1994) Relation between alcohol and nose bleeds. British Medical Journal 309(6955), 640. [Free Full-text]
McIntosh, N., Mok, J.Y. and Margerison, A. (2007) Epidemiology of oronasal hemorrhage in the first 2 years of life: implications for child protection. Pediatrics 120(5), 1074-1048. [Abstract] [Free Full-text]
Moumoulidis, I., Draper, M.R., Patel, H. et al. (2006) A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing Merocel and Rapid Rhino nasal tampons in the treatment of epistaxis. European Archives of Oto-rhino-laryngology 263(8), 719-722. [Abstract]
Murthy, P., Nilssen, E.L., Rao, S. and McClymont, L.G. (1999) A randomised clinical trial of antiseptic nasal carrier cream and silver nitrate cautery in the treatment of recurrent anterior epistaxis. Clinical Otolaryngology and Allied Sciences 24(3), 228-231. [Abstract]
Paranjothy, S., Fone, D., Mann, M. et al. (2009) The incidence and aetiology of epistaxis in infants: a population-based study. Archives of Disease in Childhood 94(6), 421-424. [Abstract]
Pashen, D. and Stevens, M. (2002) Management of epistaxis in general practice. Australian Family Physician 31(8), 1-5. [Abstract] [Free Full-text]
Pope, L. and Hobbs, C. (2005) Epistaxis: an update on current management. Postgraduate Medical Journal 81(955), 309-314. [Abstract] [Free Full-text]
Schlosser, R.J. (2009) Epistaxis. New England Journal of Medicine 360(8), 784-789.
Singer, A.J., Blanda, M., Cronin, K. et al. (2005) Comparison of nasal tampons for the treatment of epistaxis in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial. Annals of Emergency Medicine 45(2), 134-139. [Abstract]
Wormald, P.J. (2002) Epistaxis management for general practitioners. Medicine Today 3(8), 74-78.