Key result
Prophylactic acetylsalicylic acid linked to ~69% higher risk of epistaxis readmission versus no antiplatelet therapy.
Why the study?
Evidence concerning the impact of ASA intake on epistaxis recurrence is ambiguous, and no studies justify administration or correlate drug effects with the SCORE2 CVD risk scale.
Does prophylactic low-dose acetylsalicylic acid increase epistaxis recurrence in patients admitted for epistaxis?
Cohort (n=444)
No
Does prophylactic low-dose acetylsalicylic acid increase epistaxis recurrence in patients admitted for epistaxis?
Prophylactic ASA use in epistaxis patients is associated with significantly more frequent recurrences, emphasizing the need to reassess its indication, which was questionable in up to 40% of patients.
Prophylactic ASA was associated with higher epistaxis recurrence; leaves open whether to avoid it pending randomized trials.
OBJECTIVES: Epistaxis is the most common otolaryngological emergency and one-third of epistaxis patients regularly take low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The shift in contemporary guidelines identifies little benefit of ASA intake in patients who have not previously had an infarction. Existing evidence confirms ASA intake as a factor for severe epistaxis, while the evidence concerning its impact on recurrence is ambiguous. There are no available studies which justify the administration of these drugs nor are there any studies correlating the effects of these drugs to the SCORE2 CVD risk stratifying scale. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of all admitted epistaxis patients in a tertiary academic hospital for the 10 year period 2011 to 2021. METHODS: Patient data were analysed using the hospital information software. A recurrence was defined as an epistaxis episode requiring hospital readmittance for at least one night. Patients taking anticoagulants were excluded (N = 421). RESULTS: 444 patients were included: 246 were taking ASA and 198 were not (NoASA). ASA patients had more frequent recurrence in general (p = 0.03), more recurrences per patient (p = 0.002), and more changes in bleeding localisation (p = 0.04). Recurrence in the ASA group was associated with lower haemoglobin values (HR 0.62, p < 0.0001), while surgery (HR 6.83, p < 0.0001) was associated with recurrence in the NoASA group. ASA patients had a statistically significant (r 0.33, p = 0.032) correlation between the total number of epistaxis recurrences and SCORE2. The indication for drug intake was highly questionable in as much as 40% of ASA patients. Follow-up time was 5.27 years. CONCLUSIONS: Epistaxis patients taking prophylactic ASA are significantly more burdened by recurrence, because they have more frequent recurrences, a greater number of recurrences per patient, and more changes in bleeding localisations when compared to control patients. The drug indication is questionable in up to 40% of ASA patients, exposing them unnecessarily to recurrence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stanković et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Epistaxis (n=444). Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) vs. No antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs was evaluated on Epistaxis recurrence requiring hospital readmittance for at least one night (p=0.034). Prophylactic acetylsalicylic acid significantly increased the rate of epistaxis recurrence requiring hospital readmission compared to no antiplatelet therapy (17.1% vs 10.1%, p=0.034).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: