MedElevator
Войти в исследования Oral oncology · 2024
Characteristics and treatment of epistaxis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wu Wen-Bin, Xia Le, Feng Zheng-Kai, Liang Jiong-Lin, Ding Xi, Chen Si-Yuan, You Rui, Chen Ming-Yuan, Liu You-Ping
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To analyze the risk factors and explore effective treatments for epistaxis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients.
METHODS: From March 2006 to February 2020, 351 epistaxis patients visited our center and 195 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. Characteristics and treatments, including step-up hemostatic treatment (including medication, anterior ± posterior nostril packing, or further surgical hemostasis) and the CTPI emergency hemostasis method (including common carotid artery compression, tracheotomy / intubation, packing of nasal and nasopharynx, and interventional treatment), were analyzed.
RESULTS: The median total bleeding volume was 100.0 ml (range 20-4430 ml). 126 (64.6 %) and 69 (35.4 %) patients suffered from non-massive epistaxis and massive epistaxis. The 1-year overall survival (OS) rate was 60.1 % for patients with massive epistaxis and 97.3 % for those with non-massive epistaxis treated with step-up hemostatic treatment. Among patients with massive epistaxis, the 1-year OS rate was 80.0 % for those who received CTPI and 13.3 % for those who received step-up hemostatic treatment.
CONCLUSION: ICA exposure and hemostasis failure was adverse prognostic factors for OS in NPC patients with epistaxis. The step-up hemostatic treatment is effective for controlling non-massive epistaxis. The CTPI emergency method might be an effective hemostasis treatment for NPC patients with massive epistaxis, especially those with PRNN and ICA exposure.
METHODS: From March 2006 to February 2020, 351 epistaxis patients visited our center and 195 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. Characteristics and treatments, including step-up hemostatic treatment (including medication, anterior ± posterior nostril packing, or further surgical hemostasis) and the CTPI emergency hemostasis method (including common carotid artery compression, tracheotomy / intubation, packing of nasal and nasopharynx, and interventional treatment), were analyzed.
RESULTS: The median total bleeding volume was 100.0 ml (range 20-4430 ml). 126 (64.6 %) and 69 (35.4 %) patients suffered from non-massive epistaxis and massive epistaxis. The 1-year overall survival (OS) rate was 60.1 % for patients with massive epistaxis and 97.3 % for those with non-massive epistaxis treated with step-up hemostatic treatment. Among patients with massive epistaxis, the 1-year OS rate was 80.0 % for those who received CTPI and 13.3 % for those who received step-up hemostatic treatment.
CONCLUSION: ICA exposure and hemostasis failure was adverse prognostic factors for OS in NPC patients with epistaxis. The step-up hemostatic treatment is effective for controlling non-massive epistaxis. The CTPI emergency method might be an effective hemostasis treatment for NPC patients with massive epistaxis, especially those with PRNN and ICA exposure.