CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02488135Updated Jan 18, 2023Results posted

Management of Persistent Epistaxis Using Floseal Hemostatic Matrix

An interventional study of Floseal Hemostatic Matrix and Traditional Nasal Packing in Epistaxis, sponsored by University of Alberta. Completed at 1 site in Canada. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-01-18.

Sponsored by University of Alberta · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
26
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Nosebleeds that persist even after adequate traditional nasal packing may require aggressive treatment strategies to stop bleeding. Currently these strategies include a surgical approach to cut off blood supply to the vessel that is bleeding. FloSeal Hemostatic matrix is a gel like medical therapy that is inserted into the nose and is engineered to stop bleeding in severe cases, possibly avoiding the need for surgery. In this study the investigators will randomize patients to either receive FloSeal Hemostatix matrix or traditional nasal packing as a treatment for severe nosebleeds. The main outcome will be whether the investigators are able to stop bleeding with FloSeal or traditional packing alone and whether additional measures are necessary to stop the bleeding. The investigators will also perform a patient comfort survey and cost analysis. Even if FloSeal has equal effectiveness in treating nosebleeds as traditional packing, if it is much more comfortable for patients then it may be the favourable treatment.

Read the detailed description

Background: Epistaxis 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.

Methods: A 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 hours post-treatment, and 2) self-reported patient comfort at 48 hours 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.

02

Conditions studied

  • Epistaxis

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Floseal® (Baxter, USA)
  • epistaxis
  • nasal packing
  • persistent
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • All patients age 18+ presenting with epistaxis that requires an ENT consult that had a first attempt at treatment by an emergency physician.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients will be excluded based on the presence of a hypo-coagulable state. Including patients actively taking anti-coagulant medications or other patients with either acquired or hereditary bleeding disorders.
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
26 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Floseal Hemostatic Matrix

    Patients will receive Floseal Hemostatic Matrix topically at the location of active bleeding. Floseal is a gel-like fibrin glue that is applied using a syringe and forms a hemostatic clot.

    Device: Floseal Hemostatic Matrix

  • Active comparator
    Traditional Nasal Packing

    Patients will receive traditional nasal packing to try and abort bleeding. This includes either vaseline gauze or nasal merocels being inserted into the anterior nasal cavity using forceps. These expand upon contact with blood or liquid therefore creating a compression type hemostasis.

    Procedure: Traditional Nasal Packing

Interventions

  • DeviceFloseal Hemostatic Matrix

    Floseal Hemostatic Matrix is a gel like fibrin glue used topically in the nasal cavity and applied with a syringe.

  • ProcedureTraditional Nasal Packing

    Using either vaseline gauze or nasal merocels. These will be placed in the anterior nasal cavity using nasal speculum and forceps.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Number of Participants With Initial Hemostasis

    Residents administering the treatments will empirically observe primary hemostasis. Any active bleeding requiring further intervention within 4 hours of treatment will be defined as failure of initial hemostasis.

    Time frame: 4 hours

Secondary outcomes

  1. Patient Pain Level

    Patients will be contacted 48 hours following treatment with either Floseal or traditional nasal packing and be asked to rate their pain on a 10-point "Visual Analog Pain Scale". They will rate their pain for: 1) the placement of the treatment, 2) the duration of the treatment AND 3) the removal of the treatment. Minimum: 0 (less pain) Maximum: 10 (more pain) Higher scores indicate more pain and lower scores indicate less pain.

    Time frame: 48 hours

06

Results

Posted Jan 18, 2023
Limitations and caveats
Lack of blinding to either patient or practitioner. 30 day follow-up limit on outcomes and adverse events

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneFloseal Hemostatic MatrixTraditional Nasal Packing
Started1313
Completed1313
Not completed00

Outcome measures

PrimaryNumber of Participants With Initial Hemostasis

Residents administering the treatments will empirically observe primary hemostasis. Any active bleeding requiring further intervention within 4 hours of treatment will be defined as failure of initial hemostasis.

Time frame:
4 hours
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number of Participants With Initial Hemostasis
ParticipantsFloseal Hemostatic MatrixTraditional Nasal Packing
Number of Participants With Initial Hemostasis1011
Statistical analysis
  • Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs Traditional Nasal Packing · Fisher Exact · p = 1.000
SecondaryPatient Pain Level

Patients will be contacted 48 hours following treatment with either Floseal or traditional nasal packing and be asked to rate their pain on a 10-point "Visual Analog Pain Scale". They will rate their pain for: 1) the placement of the treatment, 2) the duration of the treatment AND 3) the removal of the treatment. Minimum: 0 (less pain) Maximum: 10 (more pain) Higher scores indicate more pain and lower scores indicate less pain.

Time frame:
48 hours
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Patient Pain Level
units on a scaleFloseal Hemostatic MatrixTraditional Nasal Packing
Pain Score During Placement2.42 (0 to 8)7.77 (4 to 10)
Pain Score During Treatment0.50 (0 to 3)4.46 (0 to 10)
Pain Score During Removal0 (0 to 0)3.85 (0 to 10)
Statistical analysis
  • Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs Traditional Nasal Packing · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.0022
  • Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs Traditional Nasal Packing · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.0007
  • Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs Traditional Nasal Packing · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.0021

Adverse events

Collected over 30 days. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Floseal Hemostatic Matrix0/13 (0%)0/13 (0%)0/13 (0%)
Traditional Nasal Packing0/13 (0%)0/13 (0%)0/13 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Floseal Hemostatic MatrixTraditional Nasal PackingTotal
Mean58.95 (22 to 95)55.08 (18 to 86)57.02 (18 to 95)
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Floseal Hemostatic MatrixTraditional Nasal PackingTotal
Female5712
Male8614
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected(Participants)Floseal Hemostatic MatrixTraditional Nasal PackingTotal
Count of participants——0
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Floseal Hemostatic MatrixTraditional Nasal PackingTotal
Canada131326
Charlson Comorbidity Index
Charlson Comorbidity Index(units on a scale)Floseal Hemostatic MatrixTraditional Nasal PackingTotal
Mean2.31 (0 to 7)2.31 (0 to 5)2.31 (0 to 7)
Aspirin Use
Aspirin Use(Participants)Floseal Hemostatic MatrixTraditional Nasal PackingTotal
Count of participants235
07

Study locations

1 site
  • University of Alberta Hospital
    Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2B7, Canada
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Murray S, Mendez A, Hopkins A, El-Hakim H, Jeffery CC, Cote DWJ. Management of Persistent Epistaxis Using Floseal Hemostatic Matrix vs. traditional nasal packing: a prospective randomized control trial. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Jan 8;47(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s40463-017-0248-5. PubMed 29310703 ↗

Study documents

  • Study protocol · Jun 8, 2015
  • Statistical analysis plan · Oct 12, 2018
  • Informed consent form · Aug 27, 2015

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02488135
Lead sponsor
University of Alberta
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jul 2, 2015
Start date
Jul 1, 2015
Primary completion
Mar 1, 2017
Completion
Mar 1, 2017
Results posted
Jan 18, 2023
Last update
Jan 18, 2023

Study contacts

David Cote, MD, FRCS(C)
principal investigator · Alberta Health services

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion