Developing a laddered algorithm for the management of intractable epistaxis

A risk analysis

Randy M. Leung, Timothy Smith, Luke Rudmik

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: For patients with epistaxis in whom initial interventions, such as anterior packing and cauterization, had failed, options including prolonged posterior packing, transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL), and embolization are available. However, it is unclear which interventions should be attempted and in which order. While cost-effectiveness analyses have suggested that TESPAL is the most responsible use of health care resources, physicians must also consider patient risk to maintain a patient-centered decision-making process. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk associated with the management of intractable epistaxis. DESIGN AND SETTING: A risk analysis was performed using literature-reported probabilities of treatment failure and adverse event likelihoods in an emergency department and otolaryngology hospital admissions setting. The literature search included articles from 1980 to May 2014. The analysis was modeled for a 50-year-old man with no other medical comorbidities. Severities of complications were modeled based on Environmental Protection Agency recommendations, and health state utilities were monetized based on a willingness to pay $22 500 per quality-adjusted life-year. Six management strategies were developed using posterior packing, TESPAL, and embolization in various sequences (P, T, and E, respectively). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total risk associated with each algorithm quantified in US dollars. RESULTS: Algorithms involving posterior packing and TESPAL as first-line interventions were found to be similarly low risk. The lowest-risk approaches were P-T-E ($2437.99 [range, $1482.83-$6976.40]), T-P-E ($2840.65 [range, $1136.89-$8604.97]), and T-E-P ($2867.82 [range, $1141.05-$9833.96]). Embolization as a first-line treatment raised the total risk significantly owing to the risk of cerebrovascular events (E-T-P, $11 945.42 [range, $3911.43-$31 847.00]; and E-P-T, $11 945.71 [range, $39 19.91-$31 767.66]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Laddered approaches using TESPAL and posterior packing appear to provide the lowest risk. Combining risk and cost-effectiveness perspectives, we recommend a laddered approach to intractable epistaxis with TESPAL first, followed by either embolization or posterior packing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)405-409
Number of pages5
JournalJAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume141
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2015

Fingerprint

Epistaxis
Ligation
Arteries
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cautery
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Health Resources
Otolaryngology
Treatment Failure
Hospital Emergency Service
Comorbidity
Decision Making
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Delivery of Health Care
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Surgery
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Developing a laddered algorithm for the management of intractable epistaxis : A risk analysis. / Leung, Randy M.; Smith, Timothy; Rudmik, Luke.

In: JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 141, No. 5, 01.05.2015, p. 405-409.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d87ab9a302bc48adbec6726eb815197e,
title = "Developing a laddered algorithm for the management of intractable epistaxis: A risk analysis",
abstract = "IMPORTANCE: For patients with epistaxis in whom initial interventions, such as anterior packing and cauterization, had failed, options including prolonged posterior packing, transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL), and embolization are available. However, it is unclear which interventions should be attempted and in which order. While cost-effectiveness analyses have suggested that TESPAL is the most responsible use of health care resources, physicians must also consider patient risk to maintain a patient-centered decision-making process. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk associated with the management of intractable epistaxis. DESIGN AND SETTING: A risk analysis was performed using literature-reported probabilities of treatment failure and adverse event likelihoods in an emergency department and otolaryngology hospital admissions setting. The literature search included articles from 1980 to May 2014. The analysis was modeled for a 50-year-old man with no other medical comorbidities. Severities of complications were modeled based on Environmental Protection Agency recommendations, and health state utilities were monetized based on a willingness to pay $22 500 per quality-adjusted life-year. Six management strategies were developed using posterior packing, TESPAL, and embolization in various sequences (P, T, and E, respectively). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total risk associated with each algorithm quantified in US dollars. RESULTS: Algorithms involving posterior packing and TESPAL as first-line interventions were found to be similarly low risk. The lowest-risk approaches were P-T-E ($2437.99 [range, $1482.83-$6976.40]), T-P-E ($2840.65 [range, $1136.89-$8604.97]), and T-E-P ($2867.82 [range, $1141.05-$9833.96]). Embolization as a first-line treatment raised the total risk significantly owing to the risk of cerebrovascular events (E-T-P, $11 945.42 [range, $3911.43-$31 847.00]; and E-P-T, $11 945.71 [range, $39 19.91-$31 767.66]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Laddered approaches using TESPAL and posterior packing appear to provide the lowest risk. Combining risk and cost-effectiveness perspectives, we recommend a laddered approach to intractable epistaxis with TESPAL first, followed by either embolization or posterior packing.",
author = "Leung, {Randy M.} and Timothy Smith and Luke Rudmik",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jamaoto.2015.106",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "141",
pages = "405--409",
journal = "JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery",
issn = "2168-6181",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Developing a laddered algorithm for the management of intractable epistaxis

T2 - A risk analysis

AU - Leung, Randy M.

AU - Smith, Timothy

AU - Rudmik, Luke

PY - 2015/5/1

Y1 - 2015/5/1

N2 - IMPORTANCE: For patients with epistaxis in whom initial interventions, such as anterior packing and cauterization, had failed, options including prolonged posterior packing, transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL), and embolization are available. However, it is unclear which interventions should be attempted and in which order. While cost-effectiveness analyses have suggested that TESPAL is the most responsible use of health care resources, physicians must also consider patient risk to maintain a patient-centered decision-making process. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk associated with the management of intractable epistaxis. DESIGN AND SETTING: A risk analysis was performed using literature-reported probabilities of treatment failure and adverse event likelihoods in an emergency department and otolaryngology hospital admissions setting. The literature search included articles from 1980 to May 2014. The analysis was modeled for a 50-year-old man with no other medical comorbidities. Severities of complications were modeled based on Environmental Protection Agency recommendations, and health state utilities were monetized based on a willingness to pay $22 500 per quality-adjusted life-year. Six management strategies were developed using posterior packing, TESPAL, and embolization in various sequences (P, T, and E, respectively). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total risk associated with each algorithm quantified in US dollars. RESULTS: Algorithms involving posterior packing and TESPAL as first-line interventions were found to be similarly low risk. The lowest-risk approaches were P-T-E ($2437.99 [range, $1482.83-$6976.40]), T-P-E ($2840.65 [range, $1136.89-$8604.97]), and T-E-P ($2867.82 [range, $1141.05-$9833.96]). Embolization as a first-line treatment raised the total risk significantly owing to the risk of cerebrovascular events (E-T-P, $11 945.42 [range, $3911.43-$31 847.00]; and E-P-T, $11 945.71 [range, $39 19.91-$31 767.66]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Laddered approaches using TESPAL and posterior packing appear to provide the lowest risk. Combining risk and cost-effectiveness perspectives, we recommend a laddered approach to intractable epistaxis with TESPAL first, followed by either embolization or posterior packing.

AB - IMPORTANCE: For patients with epistaxis in whom initial interventions, such as anterior packing and cauterization, had failed, options including prolonged posterior packing, transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL), and embolization are available. However, it is unclear which interventions should be attempted and in which order. While cost-effectiveness analyses have suggested that TESPAL is the most responsible use of health care resources, physicians must also consider patient risk to maintain a patient-centered decision-making process. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk associated with the management of intractable epistaxis. DESIGN AND SETTING: A risk analysis was performed using literature-reported probabilities of treatment failure and adverse event likelihoods in an emergency department and otolaryngology hospital admissions setting. The literature search included articles from 1980 to May 2014. The analysis was modeled for a 50-year-old man with no other medical comorbidities. Severities of complications were modeled based on Environmental Protection Agency recommendations, and health state utilities were monetized based on a willingness to pay $22 500 per quality-adjusted life-year. Six management strategies were developed using posterior packing, TESPAL, and embolization in various sequences (P, T, and E, respectively). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total risk associated with each algorithm quantified in US dollars. RESULTS: Algorithms involving posterior packing and TESPAL as first-line interventions were found to be similarly low risk. The lowest-risk approaches were P-T-E ($2437.99 [range, $1482.83-$6976.40]), T-P-E ($2840.65 [range, $1136.89-$8604.97]), and T-E-P ($2867.82 [range, $1141.05-$9833.96]). Embolization as a first-line treatment raised the total risk significantly owing to the risk of cerebrovascular events (E-T-P, $11 945.42 [range, $3911.43-$31 847.00]; and E-P-T, $11 945.71 [range, $39 19.91-$31 767.66]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Laddered approaches using TESPAL and posterior packing appear to provide the lowest risk. Combining risk and cost-effectiveness perspectives, we recommend a laddered approach to intractable epistaxis with TESPAL first, followed by either embolization or posterior packing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84929643321&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84929643321&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamaoto.2015.106

DO - 10.1001/jamaoto.2015.106

M3 - Article

VL - 141

SP - 405

EP - 409

JO - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

JF - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

SN - 2168-6181

IS - 5

ER -