Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Why Not Use Quik-Clot

  1. #26
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Army medic and civilian EMTP chiming in:

    I was in when we had both the powder crap, and now the new Combat Gauze stuff. I have used both, (live tissue labs, and in theater.) I strongly prefer the gauze. It worked like a champ.

    The powder on the other hand didn't seem as effective, but my skill with it (or lack there-of) may have been a factor. It became a bit of a mess.

    Trauma management strategy between military and civilian has always been very divided. For example the use of Tournaquets are almost first line in military, but on the civilian side TQs are considered a last ditch effort.




    From my experience a TQ is the most effective care for life threatening extremity bleeding control, and regardless of the environment, it's almost always my first line choice. A properly applied TQ virtually ALWAYS works... unless the artery has withdrawn beyond the reach of the TQ (which is also very rare). I have yet to encounter an MD who disagrees with me.

    As far as the use of chemical agents - from my experience, I have found them rarely indicated. They are for life threatening bleeding when you can't apply a TQ. How often do you REALLY see that? A gunshot wound to the abdomen? Think about it... Will Quick Clot fix that? No. The bleeding is from the organs within the peritoneum... Quick clot will NOT reach that. The only thing that will save that person is a surgeon. That goes for most penatrating wounds to the core or neck.

    They are expensive, and with economics being what they are, I don't hold it against a fire department for not ordering them.
    Last edited by Carichey; 08-23-2011 at 08:05 AM.

  2. #27
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: Why Not Use Quik-Clot

    The way I see it that military equipments are for extreme needs. Firefighters can find a more civilized solution to their injuries.

  3. #28
    MembersZone Subscriber
    fallujahff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Eastern Shore, Va.
    Posts
    337

    Wink

    As far as the use of chemical agents - from my experience, I have found them rarely indicated. They are for life threatening bleeding when you can't apply a TQ. How often do you REALLY see that? A gunshot wound to the abdomen? Think about it... Will Quick Clot fix that? No.
    +1 on that.

    Quick Clot can only be used on extremities and is no where near as effective as a properly placed TQ on amputations (no matter how ragged). You are right though--there is a trick to it.
    "When you are safe at home, you wish you were having an adventure-when you're having an adventure, you wish you were safe at home"

    --Thornton Wilder

  4. #29
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fallujahff View Post
    +1 on that.

    Quick Clot can only be used on extremities and is no where near as effective as a properly placed TQ on amputations (no matter how ragged). You are right though--there is a trick to it.
    As a former Soldier (British Army, don't hate me!) I have some experience with Hemostatic agents. We started with HEMCON, which was an impregnated sponge that you pressed into the wound. Not fantastic, and the sponge was a bit bulky. We quickly moved onto Celox (Celex?) Gauze which was 100 times better. Pack the gauze directly into the bleed, nice and tight and bandage it all up.

    TQ are great for stopping bleeding, I've had to use them, but you can't TQ a neck, armpit or groin. I have however used both Hemcon and Celox in these situations, with mostly successful outcomes.

    And as for the burning, I think the newer products that use Chitosan don't have this problem.

  5. #30
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Haughton, LA
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMZ191 View Post
    I work for DOD and we can't use it. One of the stumbling blocks we've run into in Michigan was the reluctance of the manufacturers to actually say what's in their product. Products like Quik-Clot and the Rapid-Cool? burn gel are fantastic products. However, if your patient develops a reaction, the Docs need to know what they're potentially treating.

    My brother is a retired Army Doc working in a civilain hospital now. I'll shoot him an e-mail and see what he thinks. Expect a reply in about 2 weeks.
    didn't the army invent it?

  6. #31
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 6Duron1 View Post
    didn't the army invent it?
    The only things the Army invented is the Cluster#uck and FUBAR. (Ask me how I know) Most of these kind of things are done by companies under government contract. The Army does do a lot field testing which shows how well things do in real world situations, but they don't actually do much with inventing. They usually express a need and find some entity to come up with a solution.
    WannaBeMedikFF likes this.

  7. #32
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Well there is some useful information which helps people a lot. Thanks for sharing

  8. #33
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,685

    Default

    NJ State Police carry some and have used them successfully.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register