Skip to content

Minimally Invasive Control of Epistaxis (MICE)

Minimally Invasive Control of Epistaxis: Efficacy and Economic Analysis

Status
Terminated
Phases
Phase 2Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00666471
Acronym
MICE
Enrollment
3
Registered
2008-04-25
Start date
2008-06-30
Completion date
2009-06-30
Last updated
2009-06-12

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Epistaxis

Keywords

epistaxis, Epistaxis refractory to emergency physician treatment

Brief summary

Epistaxis is a common disorder with 60% of the population suffering from one episode and 10% of these cases requiring medical attention. Between March 2006 and March 2007, in Calgary, Alberta, there were 1500 presentations of epistaxis to adult emergency rooms with 7% of these (105 patients) requiring packing with admission. Common methods to control epistaxis include, nasal packing (88%), operative arterial ligation (10%), and arterial embolization (2%). A cost analysis demonstrated that nasal packing had a lower cost compared to embolization and arterial ligation, and all modalities had similar lengths of stay (Goddard, Otolaryng Head Neck Surg. 2006). Arterial ligation is the current recommended therapy for recurrent or refractory epistaxis, with a success rate of 98%. With the advancement of endoscopic techniques, emergency room Minimally Invasive Control of Epistaxis (M.I.C.E.) allows for selective packing and cauterization, which provides the patient with retained function of their nasal cavity and prevents a hospital admission, resulting in significant cost savings. Hypothesis: Does the M.I.C.E. procedure provide significant cost savings compared to operative sphenopalatine artery ligation? Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in hospital admission rates between M.I.C.E. and operative sphenopalatine artery ligation.

Interventions

PROCEDUREMICE

MICE

PROCEDURESPA ligation

SPA ligation

Sponsors

University of Calgary
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Age ≥ 18 years old, Presenting to Rockyview General Hospital Emergency room * No coagulopathy (must have INR reversed before inclusion) * Available for follow-up at 1 week and 1 month in Calgary, Alberta * Refractory or Recurrent Epistaxis defined as: * Refractory = unable to control epistaxis with bilateral Merocel™ Nasal Tampons fully inserted into nasal cavity * Recurrent = epistaxis after removal of Merocel™ Nasal Tampons following outpatient packing for 48 hours

Exclusion criteria

* Uncorrectable coagulopathy * Unable to comply with procedure * Pregnancy * Non-Calgary emergency room presentation * Severe posterior epistaxis requiring intubation for airway protection

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Change in hospital admission requirement between M.I.C.E. and Operative Sphenopalatine Ligation30 days

Countries

Canada

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026