Annals of emergency medicine · 2005
Comparison of nasal tampons for the treatment of epistaxis in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка 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.
Singer Adam J, Blanda Michelle, Cronin Kerry, LoGiudice-Khwaja Melina, Gulla Janet, Bradshaw Jill, Katz Arnold
Аннотация
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Nasal tampons are commonly used to stop bleeding, yet their insertion is painful. We compare the pain of insertion and removal of 2 commonly used nasal tampons.
METHODS: This was a prospective randomized controlled trial in 1 urban and 1 suburban emergency department (ED). Subjects were a convenience sample of adult ED patients with active epistaxis requiring insertion of a nasal tampon, regardless of coagulation status. Pretreatment of the nasal mucosa was performed using an aerosolized lidocaine-Neo-Synephrine combination. Patients were randomized to tamponade with a single Rapid Rhino or Rhino Rocket nasal tampon. The pain and ease of insertion and success of tamponade were recorded. Tampon removal was performed after 1 to 3 days, and the pain and ease of removal, as well as the presence of any bleeding, were noted. Patients rated pain of insertion and removal on a previously validated 100-mm visual analogue pain scale (100=worst pain). Physician ease of insertion and removal was recorded on a 5-point Likert scale. Continuous data are presented as means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: We evaluated 40 patients evenly distributed between study groups and sites. Median patient age was 61 years (interquartile range 48 to 79 years), and 33% were female patients. Coagulopathy was present in 10 (25%) patients. Baseline characteristics were similar in both treatment groups. The mean pain of insertion of the Rapid Rhino (30 mm, 95% CI 18 to 41 mm) was significantly less than with the Rhino Rocket (48 mm, 95% CI 34 to 61 mm; mean difference 18 mm, 95% CI 1 to 35 mm). The mean pain of removal of the Rapid Rhino (11 mm, 95% CI 1 to 21 mm) was also lower than with the Rhino Rocket (23 mm, 95% CI 13 to 33 mm; mean difference 12 mm, 95% CI -1 to 25 mm). The Rapid Rhino was also easier to insert and remove and had a lower incidence of recurrent bleeding after removal than the Rhino Rocket. Rates of successful tamponade were similar in the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: The Rapid Rhino nasal tampon is less painful to insert and easier to remove than the Rhino Rocket, whereas both are similarly effective at stopping nosebleeds.
METHODS: This was a prospective randomized controlled trial in 1 urban and 1 suburban emergency department (ED). Subjects were a convenience sample of adult ED patients with active epistaxis requiring insertion of a nasal tampon, regardless of coagulation status. Pretreatment of the nasal mucosa was performed using an aerosolized lidocaine-Neo-Synephrine combination. Patients were randomized to tamponade with a single Rapid Rhino or Rhino Rocket nasal tampon. The pain and ease of insertion and success of tamponade were recorded. Tampon removal was performed after 1 to 3 days, and the pain and ease of removal, as well as the presence of any bleeding, were noted. Patients rated pain of insertion and removal on a previously validated 100-mm visual analogue pain scale (100=worst pain). Physician ease of insertion and removal was recorded on a 5-point Likert scale. Continuous data are presented as means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: We evaluated 40 patients evenly distributed between study groups and sites. Median patient age was 61 years (interquartile range 48 to 79 years), and 33% were female patients. Coagulopathy was present in 10 (25%) patients. Baseline characteristics were similar in both treatment groups. The mean pain of insertion of the Rapid Rhino (30 mm, 95% CI 18 to 41 mm) was significantly less than with the Rhino Rocket (48 mm, 95% CI 34 to 61 mm; mean difference 18 mm, 95% CI 1 to 35 mm). The mean pain of removal of the Rapid Rhino (11 mm, 95% CI 1 to 21 mm) was also lower than with the Rhino Rocket (23 mm, 95% CI 13 to 33 mm; mean difference 12 mm, 95% CI -1 to 25 mm). The Rapid Rhino was also easier to insert and remove and had a lower incidence of recurrent bleeding after removal than the Rhino Rocket. Rates of successful tamponade were similar in the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: The Rapid Rhino nasal tampon is less painful to insert and easier to remove than the Rhino Rocket, whereas both are similarly effective at stopping nosebleeds.