Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

There is limited evidence supporting the usage of prophylactic antibiotics in the setting of nasal packing for epistaxis. It is unclear what current antiobiotic usage patterns are by otolaryngologists.

Objectives

Characterize the antibiotic prescribing practices employed by otolaryngologists in the management of epistaxis patients treated with packing as well as the underlying rationale. Explore the impact of experience, geography, and academic affiliation on treatment decisions.

Methods

An anonymous survey of antibiotic prescribing patterns for patients with epistaxis requiring nasal packing was distributed to all physician members of the American Rhinologic Society. Responses to each question were descriptively summarized including 95% confidence intervals and were linked to demographics using Fisher's exact tests.

Results

One thousand one hundred and thirteen surveys were distributed with 307 responses (27.6%). Antibiotic prescription rates varied based on packing type, with 20.0% prescribing antibiotics for dissolvable packing compared to 84.2% to 84.6% for nondissolvable packing. The absorbance of nondissolvable packing does not impact the decision to prescribe antibiotics (P > .999). Precisely 69.7% (95% CI: 64.0%-74.8%) stop antibiotics immediately following packing removal. Precisely 85.6% (95% CI: 81.6%-89.9%) cite the risk of toxic shock syndrome (TSS) when prescribing antibiotics. Notable regional differences include greater utilization of amoxicillin-clavulanate in the Midwest (67.6%) and Northeast (61.4%) as compared with the South (42.1%) and West (45.1%) (P = .013). Further, years in practice were positively associated with several patterns including prescribing antibiotics for patients with dissolvable packing (P = .008), citing prevention of sinusitis as a rationale for antibiotic use (P < .001), and a higher likelihood of having treated a patient with TSS (P = .002).

Conclusions

Antibiotic use in patients with epistaxis controlled with nondissolvable packing is common. Treatment patterns are influenced by geography, years in practice, and practice type.

Level of Evidence

Keywords

epistaxis nasal packing toxic shock syndrome antibiotic prophylaxis geographic practice variance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Thomas

Baird

Frazier

. Toxic shock syndrome following submucous resection and rhinoplasty. JAMA. 1982;247:2402–2403.

Jacobson

Kasworm

. Toxic shock syndrome after nasal surgery. Case reports and analysis of risk factors. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1986;112:329–332. DOI: 10.1001/archotol.1986.03780030093019.

Todd

Fishaut

Kapral

, et al. Toxic-shock syndrome associated with phage-group-I staphylococci. Lancet. 1978;2:1116–1118. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(78)92274-2.

Hull

Mann

Sands

, et al. Toxic shock syndrome related to nasal packing. Arch Otolaryngol. 1983;109:624–626. DOI: 10.1001/archotol.1983.00800230060015.

Aeumjaturapat

Supanakorn

Cutchavaree

. Toxic shock syndrome after anterior-posterior nasal packing. J Med Assoc Thai. 2001;84:453–458.

Tunkel

Anne

Payne

, et al. Clinical practice guideline: nosebleed (epistaxis). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;162:S1–s38. DOI: 10.1177/0194599819890327.

Hong

Beswick

Wang

. When is antibiotic prophylaxis for nasal packing indicated? Laryngoscope. 2022;132:1889–1891. DOI: 10.1002/lary.30159.

Maul

Dincer

, et al. A clinical decision analysis for use of antibiotic prophylaxis for nonabsorbable nasal packing. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;165:647–654. DOI: 10.1177/0194599820988740.

Biswas

Mal

. Are systemic prophylactic antibiotics indicated with anterior nasal packing for spontaneous epistaxis? Acta Otolaryngol. 2009;129:179–181. DOI: 10.1080/00016480802043964.

10.

Pepper

Toma

. Prospective study of the risk of not using prophylactic antibiotics in nasal packing for epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol. 2012;126:257–259. DOI: 10.1017/s0022215111003215.

11.

Lange

Peeden

Stringer

. Are prophylactic systemic antibiotics necessary with nasal packing? A systematic review. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2017;31:240–247. DOI: 10.2500/ajra.2017.31.4454.

12.

Tran

Rehan

Haase

, et al. Prophylactic antibiotics for anterior nasal packing in emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinically-significant infections. Am J Emerg Med. 2020;38:983–989. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.11.037.

13.

Tamma

Avdic

, et al. Association of adverse events with antibiotic use in hospitalized patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:1308–1315. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.1938.

14.

Neugut

Ghatak

Miller

. Anaphylaxis in the United States: An investigation into its epidemiology. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:15–21. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.161.1.15.

15.

Suzuki

Yasunaga

Matsui

, et al. Complication rates after functional endoscopic sinus surgery: Analysis of 50,734 Japanese patients. Laryngoscope. 2015;125:1785–1791. DOI: 10.1002/lary.25334.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB