Premium
Prospective clinical trial of gelatin‐thrombin matrix as first line treatment of posterior epistaxis
Author(s) -
Kilty Shaun J.,
AlHajry Mohammad,
AlMutairi Dakheelallah,
Bonaparte James P.,
Duval Melanie,
Hwang Euna,
Tse Darren
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
the laryngoscope
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.181
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1531-4995
pISSN - 0023-852X
DOI - 10.1002/lary.24240
Subject(s) - medicine , gelatin , surgery , thrombin , matrix (chemical analysis) , anesthesia , platelet , biochemistry , chemistry , materials science , composite material
Objectives/Hypothesis To evaluate the effectiveness of gelatin‐thrombin matrix for first line treatment of posterior epistaxis. Secondarily, we evaluated discomfort during treatment and the cost savings of treatment with gelatin‐thrombin matrix compared to posterior packing, endoscopic, or endovascular treatment at our institution. Study Design Prospective pilot, nonblinded, noncontrolled registered clinical trial (NCT01098578). Methods Twenty patients with posterior epistaxis were enrolled into this study. Gelatin‐thrombin matrix was used for posterior epistaxis treatment with simultaneous ipsilateral choanal occlusion. Patients were discharged within 2 hours of being successfully treated. A visual analog scale (range 0–10) was used to assess treatment discomfort. Patients were evaluated in clinic 5 and 30 days after treatment to assess for intranasal complications and recurrent epistaxis. Results Gelatin‐thrombin matrix successfully treated epistaxis in 80% of the patients. The procedure was associated with a mean discomfort of 3.6 (range 0–9.7). The institutional per case cost of treatment of patients with posterior epistaxis with gelatin‐thrombin matrix is 80.3%, 87.4%, and 89.4% less than with endoscopic surgery, posterior packing, or embolization, respectively. There were no complications. Conclusion This pilot study demonstrated that gelatin‐thrombin matrix is a safe and both a clinically effective and cost‐saving means of treating posterior epistaxis. In this study, its use is associated with a low level of discomfort. This treatment method may improve the quality of care for patients with posterior epistaxis. Level of Evidence 4. Laryngoscope , 124:38–42, 2014