Comparative effectiveness of various noninvasive local treatments in patients with epistaxis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

The best initial strategy for managing epistaxis is unclear. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the effectiveness of various noninvasive treatments for patients with epistaxis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 2022 without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing immediate hemostasis, 2-day and 7-day rebleeding outcomes, as well as the use of noninvasive interventions for the treatment of epistaxis were selected. Frequentist NMA was performed.

RESULTS

The systematic review included 20 RCTs (2994 participants) involving 12 different interventions. The NMA demonstrated that topical treatment with tranexamic acid (TXA) significantly reduced the odds of 2-day rebleeding compared with the control conservative treatment (odds ratio [OR] 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.61) and traditional anterior nasal packing (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26-0.76). The sensitivity analysis yielded robust results, and the overall evidence was high. Topical TXA significantly reduced the odds of 7-day rebleeding compared with traditional nasal packing (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15-0.70), with moderate evidence owing to the heterogeneous results. Despite the significant effects of topical TXA on achieving immediate hemostasis and Rapid Rhino nasal packing on preventing 2-day rebleeding compared to the control and traditional nasal packing, the evidence is low to very low due to heterogeneity, inconsistency, and within-study bias.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of epistaxis, topical TXA may be superior to conservative treatment or traditional nasal packing, particularly in preventing 2-day rebleeding.