Suppr超能文献

鼻腔填塞物是急诊鼻出血的合适治疗方法吗?耳鼻喉科和急诊填塞患者的治疗结果比较。

Is the nasal tampon a suitable treatment for epistaxis in Accident & Emergency? A comparison of outcomes for ENT and A&E packed patients.

作者信息

Evans Andrew S, Young David, Adamson Richard

机构信息

Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh.

出版信息

J Laryngol Otol. 2004 Jan;118(1):12-4. doi: 10.1258/002221504322731556.

Abstract

This retrospective observational study aimed to establish the outcome for patients packed with a nasal tampon as first-line therapy for epistaxis in Accident & Emergency compared to those packed by ENT. During our study period, 189 admissions were treated with a nasal tampon as first-line therapy; 89 were inserted by ENT and 100 by A&E. A significantly higher number of patients packed by A&E required further treatment to control bleeding (p = 0.004; 95 per cent CI 7-34) than those in the group packed by ENT. A significantly greater proportion from the A&E group required additional cautery alone to control bleeding (p = 0.005; 95 per cent CI 5-30). We suggest that this may be due to inadequate initial assessment and inappropriate first-line therapy in the A&E department. It is recommended that ENT review patients prior to packing, in order to reduce the morbidity associated with multiple treatments.

摘要

这项回顾性观察研究旨在确定,与耳鼻喉科(ENT)进行鼻腔填塞的患者相比,在急诊室(Accident & Emergency)将鼻腔填塞作为鼻出血一线治疗方法的患者的治疗结果。在我们的研究期间,189名患者接受了鼻腔填塞作为一线治疗;其中89名由耳鼻喉科进行填塞,100名由急诊室进行填塞。与耳鼻喉科填塞组相比,急诊室填塞的患者中需要进一步治疗以控制出血的人数显著更多(p = 0.004;95%置信区间7 - 34)。急诊室组中仅需额外烧灼止血的比例显著更高(p = 0.005;95%置信区间5 - 30)。我们认为这可能是由于急诊室初始评估不足和一线治疗不当所致。建议耳鼻喉科在填塞前对患者进行检查,以降低与多次治疗相关的发病率。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验