Trial reportJournal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale2018
Management of Persistent Epistaxis Using Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs. traditional nasal packing: a prospective randomized control trial.
Trial report in Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Management of Persistent Anterior Epistaxis Using Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs. Traditional Nasal Packing: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.
A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial in Management of Epistaxis Comparing Nasal Packing Versus Greater Palatine Foramen Block
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective pilot study of Floseal® for the treatment of anterior epistaxis in patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT).Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2019Trial
- Review
- Impact of Floseal and NasoPore in Managing Epistaxis in the Emergency Department: A Quality Improvement Analysis.Cureus · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Surgiflo® hemostatic matrix versus NasoPore® nasal packing following postassium titanyl phosphate laser surgery for hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia: A randomized controlled trial.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2023Article
- Traumastem Powder in Treatment of Non-Traumatic Anterior Epistaxis in Emergency Department; a Randomized Clinical Trial.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2020Article
- Sinuses and Common Rhinologic Conditions.The Medical clinics of North America · 2018Review
- Management of Anterior Epistaxis in the Emergency Department Using Rapid Rhino and Merocel: A Cost Analysis.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-facialeArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpistaxis is the most common emergent consultation to otolaryngology-head & neck surgery (OHNS) and with 60% of the population having experienced an episode and 1.6 in 10,000 requiring hospitalization in their lifetime. In preliminary studies Floseal® (Baxter, USA) Hemostatic Matrix has shown efficacy in up to 80% of persistent anterior epistaxis. We sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Floseal® (Baxter, USA) compared to traditional nasal packing for persistent epistaxis.
methodsA prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted on all adult patients consulted to the OHNS service at the tertiary referral centers of the University of Alberta Hospital and Royal Alexandra Hospital for persistent epistaxis. Patients were randomized to the Floseal® (Baxter, USA) or traditional packing study arms. Our main clinical outcome measures were: 1) Hemostasis directly following treatment and at 48 h post-treatment, and 2) self-reported patient comfort at 48 h post-treatment. Further, trial data was used for a formal cost-effectiveness analysis to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate sensitivity analysis and uncertainty analysis were performed.
resultsThere were no significant differences between groups for initial hemostasis (76.9% vs. 84.6%, p = 1.000) or, hemostasis at 48 h (76.9% vs. 69.2%, p = 1.000), requirement for admission (15.4% vs. 46.1%, p = 0.2016) or 30-day re-presentation rates (15.4% vs. 46.1%, p = 0.2016). Floseal® (Baxter, USA) was superior for decreased pain during placement (2.42 vs. 7.77, p = 0.0022), treatment (0.50 vs. 4.46, p = 0.0007) and removal (0 vs. 3.85, p = 0.0021). Floseal® (Baxter, USA) provides an average $1567.61 per patient savings from the single-payer system point of view and has an ICER of - $11,891 per re-bleed prevented (95% CI: -$37,658 to +$473). Uncertainty analysis shows that Floseal® has >90% chance of not only being cost-effective, but the dominant (preferred) treatment.
conclusionsFloseal® (Baxter, USA) was demonstrated to be an effective, comfortable and cost-effective alternative treatment of persistent epistaxis when compared to traditional packing methods for patients referred to OHNS with a normal coagulation profile.
trial registrationTrial registration number: NCT02488135 . Date registered: June 26, 2015.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.