Open AccessA NEW METHOD OF EPISTAXIS MANAGEMENT USING NASAL GEL: A SINGLE CENTER, RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL
Author(s) -
Mehdi Torabi,
Ava Roughani Esfahani,
Shiva Moeinaddini,
Mohammad Reza Baneshi
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
asian journal of pharmaceutical and clinical research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2455-3891
pISSN - 0974-2441
DOI - 10.22159/ajpcr.2018.v11i3.22462
Subject(s) - medicine , patient satisfaction , anesthesia , randomized controlled trial , side effect (computer science) , pain score , surgery , clinical trial , computer science , programming language
Objective: Epistaxis is one of the common causes of patients’ referral to the emergency departments. In the majority of cases, epistaxis is managed by traditional methods. We investigated the efficacy of nasal gel (NG) in comparison to anterior nasal packing (ANP) to stop mild-to-moderate anterior nasal bleeding.Methods: In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, patients were divided into two groups of ANP (n=60) and NG (n=40). We determined and compared the efficacy of treatment (bleeding stop time and recurrence), patients’ satisfaction at discharge (length of stay in the hospital, pain during the procedure, and procedural time), and safety (less side effects) in both groups.Results: The procedural time ≤2 min was observed in 90% and 58.33 % of NG group and ANP group, respectively (p<0.001). Pain score during procedure ≤4 and patients’ satisfaction ≥7 were, respectively, seen in 87.5% and 65% of NG group, but it was 43.33% and 41.7% in ANP group, respectively (p<0.001, p=0.02). The side effects in ANP group were 35%; however, no side effects were observed in NG group.Conclusion: In the management of mild-to-moderate anterior nasal bleeding although NG efficacy is equivalent to ANP, using NG may be more convenient and satisfactory for patients. In addition, the use of this gel may result in more safety and fewer side effects.