Should prophylactic antibiotics be used routinely in epistaxis patients with nasal packs?

The current mainstream practice in otolaryngology departments relating to the use of prophylactic antibiotics in epistaxis patients requiring nasal packing is highly variable. This is due primarily to the lack of any validated guidelines. As such, we introduced a new treatment algorithm resulting in...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 2013-01, Vol.95 (1), p.40-42
Hauptverfasser: Biggs, T C, Nightingale, K, Patel, N N, Salib, R J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 42
container_issue 1
container_start_page 40
container_title Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England
container_volume 95
creator Biggs, T C
Nightingale, K
Patel, N N
Salib, R J
description The current mainstream practice in otolaryngology departments relating to the use of prophylactic antibiotics in epistaxis patients requiring nasal packing is highly variable. This is due primarily to the lack of any validated guidelines. As such, we introduced a new treatment algorithm resulting in significant reduction of use in the systemic antibiotics, with emphasis instead on the use of topical antibiotics. The results were validated through a complete audit cycle. A total of 57 patients undergoing nasal packing for spontaneous epistaxis were studied. Reaudit occurred after the implementation of new guidelines. Telephone surveys were conducted six weeks after hospital discharge, assessing infective nasal symptoms as well as rebleeding and readmission rates. Systemic antibiotic prescribing in anterior nasal packing fell by 58.2% between audit cycles with no statistically significant associated increase in infective nasal symptoms, rebleeding or readmission rates six weeks following hospital discharge. Systemic prophylactic antibiotics are unnecessary in the majority of epistaxis patients with nasal packs. The use of topical antibiotics such as Naseptin may be more appropriate, cheaper and as effective. Implementation of this treatment algorithm will help standardise systemic antibiotic usage in epistaxis patients with nasal packing and should reduce costs associated with unnecessary use of such medication.
doi_str_mv 10.1308/003588413X13511609954734
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3964636</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2207856270</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-d5e10a024104861bff5af09c622635cd4b0b8c49ca933410bbc02c1ca38532c83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUuLFTEQhYMoznX0L0jAjZvWVCqv3igy-IIBFyroKqTTaW_Gvp02Sav335thxkEFV1VUfXU4xSGEAnsCyMxTxlAaIwA_AUoAxfpeCo3iFtmB0KbTzOBtsrvEusbhCblXygVj0GsDd8kJRwStudqRz-_3aZtHuua07o-z8zV66pYah5haW-gQ6FbCSHPaalzCfKRxoWGNpbqfsdDV1RiWWuiPWPd0ccXNbea_luf3yZ3JzSU8uK6n5OOrlx_O3nTn716_PXtx3nkhTO1GGYA5xgUwYRQM0yTdxHqvOFco_SgGNhgveu96xAYNg2fcg3doJHJv8JQ8u9Jdt-EQRt_cZDfbNceDy0ebXLR_b5a4t1_Sd4u9EgpVE3h8LZDTty2Uag-x-DDPbglpKxa4RikMV9DQR_-gF2nLS3vPcs60kYpr1ihzRfmcSslhujEDzF7mZ_-XXzt9-OczN4e_A8Nfl7-XWg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2207856270</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Should prophylactic antibiotics be used routinely in epistaxis patients with nasal packs?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Biggs, T C ; Nightingale, K ; Patel, N N ; Salib, R J</creator><creatorcontrib>Biggs, T C ; Nightingale, K ; Patel, N N ; Salib, R J</creatorcontrib><description>The current mainstream practice in otolaryngology departments relating to the use of prophylactic antibiotics in epistaxis patients requiring nasal packing is highly variable. This is due primarily to the lack of any validated guidelines. As such, we introduced a new treatment algorithm resulting in significant reduction of use in the systemic antibiotics, with emphasis instead on the use of topical antibiotics. The results were validated through a complete audit cycle. A total of 57 patients undergoing nasal packing for spontaneous epistaxis were studied. Reaudit occurred after the implementation of new guidelines. Telephone surveys were conducted six weeks after hospital discharge, assessing infective nasal symptoms as well as rebleeding and readmission rates. Systemic antibiotic prescribing in anterior nasal packing fell by 58.2% between audit cycles with no statistically significant associated increase in infective nasal symptoms, rebleeding or readmission rates six weeks following hospital discharge. Systemic prophylactic antibiotics are unnecessary in the majority of epistaxis patients with nasal packs. The use of topical antibiotics such as Naseptin may be more appropriate, cheaper and as effective. Implementation of this treatment algorithm will help standardise systemic antibiotic usage in epistaxis patients with nasal packing and should reduce costs associated with unnecessary use of such medication.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0035-8843</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1478-7083</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1308/003588413X13511609954734</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23317726</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Algorithms ; Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods ; Antibiotics ; Audit cycles ; Audits ; Child ; Departments ; Endocarditis ; Endotamponade - methods ; ENT ; Epistaxis - therapy ; Female ; Humans ; Infections ; Male ; Medical Audit ; Middle Aged ; Nose ; Packaging ; Pain ; Questionnaires ; Retrospective Studies ; Statistical analysis ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2013-01, Vol.95 (1), p.40-42</ispartof><rights>Copyright Royal College of Surgeons of England Jan 2013</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Royal College of Surgeons 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-d5e10a024104861bff5af09c622635cd4b0b8c49ca933410bbc02c1ca38532c83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-d5e10a024104861bff5af09c622635cd4b0b8c49ca933410bbc02c1ca38532c83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3964636/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3964636/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23317726$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Biggs, T C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nightingale, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, N N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salib, R J</creatorcontrib><title>Should prophylactic antibiotics be used routinely in epistaxis patients with nasal packs?</title><title>Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England</title><addtitle>Ann R Coll Surg Engl</addtitle><description>The current mainstream practice in otolaryngology departments relating to the use of prophylactic antibiotics in epistaxis patients requiring nasal packing is highly variable. This is due primarily to the lack of any validated guidelines. As such, we introduced a new treatment algorithm resulting in significant reduction of use in the systemic antibiotics, with emphasis instead on the use of topical antibiotics. The results were validated through a complete audit cycle. A total of 57 patients undergoing nasal packing for spontaneous epistaxis were studied. Reaudit occurred after the implementation of new guidelines. Telephone surveys were conducted six weeks after hospital discharge, assessing infective nasal symptoms as well as rebleeding and readmission rates. Systemic antibiotic prescribing in anterior nasal packing fell by 58.2% between audit cycles with no statistically significant associated increase in infective nasal symptoms, rebleeding or readmission rates six weeks following hospital discharge. Systemic prophylactic antibiotics are unnecessary in the majority of epistaxis patients with nasal packs. The use of topical antibiotics such as Naseptin may be more appropriate, cheaper and as effective. Implementation of this treatment algorithm will help standardise systemic antibiotic usage in epistaxis patients with nasal packing and should reduce costs associated with unnecessary use of such medication.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods</subject><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>Audit cycles</subject><subject>Audits</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Departments</subject><subject>Endocarditis</subject><subject>Endotamponade - methods</subject><subject>ENT</subject><subject>Epistaxis - therapy</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical Audit</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nose</subject><subject>Packaging</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0035-8843</issn><issn>1478-7083</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUuLFTEQhYMoznX0L0jAjZvWVCqv3igy-IIBFyroKqTTaW_Gvp02Sav335thxkEFV1VUfXU4xSGEAnsCyMxTxlAaIwA_AUoAxfpeCo3iFtmB0KbTzOBtsrvEusbhCblXygVj0GsDd8kJRwStudqRz-_3aZtHuua07o-z8zV66pYah5haW-gQ6FbCSHPaalzCfKRxoWGNpbqfsdDV1RiWWuiPWPd0ccXNbea_luf3yZ3JzSU8uK6n5OOrlx_O3nTn716_PXtx3nkhTO1GGYA5xgUwYRQM0yTdxHqvOFco_SgGNhgveu96xAYNg2fcg3doJHJv8JQ8u9Jdt-EQRt_cZDfbNceDy0ebXLR_b5a4t1_Sd4u9EgpVE3h8LZDTty2Uag-x-DDPbglpKxa4RikMV9DQR_-gF2nLS3vPcs60kYpr1ihzRfmcSslhujEDzF7mZ_-XXzt9-OczN4e_A8Nfl7-XWg</recordid><startdate>201301</startdate><enddate>201301</enddate><creator>Biggs, T C</creator><creator>Nightingale, K</creator><creator>Patel, N N</creator><creator>Salib, R J</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>Royal College of Surgeons</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>EHMNL</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201301</creationdate><title>Should prophylactic antibiotics be used routinely in epistaxis patients with nasal packs?</title><author>Biggs, T C ; Nightingale, K ; Patel, N N ; Salib, R J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-d5e10a024104861bff5af09c622635cd4b0b8c49ca933410bbc02c1ca38532c83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods</topic><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>Audit cycles</topic><topic>Audits</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Departments</topic><topic>Endocarditis</topic><topic>Endotamponade - methods</topic><topic>ENT</topic><topic>Epistaxis - therapy</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical Audit</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nose</topic><topic>Packaging</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Biggs, T C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nightingale, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, N N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salib, R J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>UK &amp; Ireland Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Biggs, T C</au><au>Nightingale, K</au><au>Patel, N N</au><au>Salib, R J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Should prophylactic antibiotics be used routinely in epistaxis patients with nasal packs?</atitle><jtitle>Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England</jtitle><addtitle>Ann R Coll Surg Engl</addtitle><date>2013-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>95</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>40</spage><epage>42</epage><pages>40-42</pages><issn>0035-8843</issn><eissn>1478-7083</eissn><abstract>The current mainstream practice in otolaryngology departments relating to the use of prophylactic antibiotics in epistaxis patients requiring nasal packing is highly variable. This is due primarily to the lack of any validated guidelines. As such, we introduced a new treatment algorithm resulting in significant reduction of use in the systemic antibiotics, with emphasis instead on the use of topical antibiotics. The results were validated through a complete audit cycle. A total of 57 patients undergoing nasal packing for spontaneous epistaxis were studied. Reaudit occurred after the implementation of new guidelines. Telephone surveys were conducted six weeks after hospital discharge, assessing infective nasal symptoms as well as rebleeding and readmission rates. Systemic antibiotic prescribing in anterior nasal packing fell by 58.2% between audit cycles with no statistically significant associated increase in infective nasal symptoms, rebleeding or readmission rates six weeks following hospital discharge. Systemic prophylactic antibiotics are unnecessary in the majority of epistaxis patients with nasal packs. The use of topical antibiotics such as Naseptin may be more appropriate, cheaper and as effective. Implementation of this treatment algorithm will help standardise systemic antibiotic usage in epistaxis patients with nasal packing and should reduce costs associated with unnecessary use of such medication.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><pmid>23317726</pmid><doi>10.1308/003588413X13511609954734</doi><tpages>3</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0035-8843
ispartof Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2013-01, Vol.95 (1), p.40-42
issn 0035-8843
1478-7083
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3964636
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Algorithms
Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods
Antibiotics
Audit cycles
Audits
Child
Departments
Endocarditis
Endotamponade - methods
ENT
Epistaxis - therapy
Female
Humans
Infections
Male
Medical Audit
Middle Aged
Nose
Packaging
Pain
Questionnaires
Retrospective Studies
Statistical analysis
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
title Should prophylactic antibiotics be used routinely in epistaxis patients with nasal packs?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T11%3A47%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Should%20prophylactic%20antibiotics%20be%20used%20routinely%20in%20epistaxis%20patients%20with%20nasal%20packs?&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20the%20Royal%20College%20of%20Surgeons%20of%20England&rft.au=Biggs,%20T%20C&rft.date=2013-01&rft.volume=95&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=40&rft.epage=42&rft.pages=40-42&rft.issn=0035-8843&rft.eissn=1478-7083&rft_id=info:doi/10.1308/003588413X13511609954734&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2207856270%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2207856270&rft_id=info:pmid/23317726&rfr_iscdi=true