Re: Bail out bag medical
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hattori Hanzō</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JB Gleason</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"Shell Fish allergy"... FALSE. That's not Quik Clot, Combat Gauze or Celox. That is an entirely different product, Hemcon, that is made from Chitosan which is a derivative of shellfish.
</div></div>
<span style="font-style: italic">An alternative hemostatic dressing: comparison of CELOX, HemCon, and QuikClot.
Kozen BG, Kircher SJ, Henao J, Godinez FS, Johnson AS.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA, USA.
[email protected] Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Uncontrolled hemorrhage remains a leading cause of traumatic death. Several topical adjunct agents have been shown to be effective in controlling hemorrhage, and two, chitosan wafer dressing (HemCon [HC]) and zeolite powder dressing (QuikClot [QC]), are being utilized regularly on the battlefield. However, recent literature reviews have concluded that no ideal topical agent exists. The authors compared <span style="font-weight: bold">a new chitosan granule dressing (CELOX [CX])</span> to HC, QC and standard dressing in a lethal hemorrhagic groin injury.
METHODS: A complex groin injury with transection of the femoral vessels and 3 minutes of uncontrolled hemorrhage was created in 48 swine. The animals were then randomized to four treatment groups (12 animals each). Group 1 included <span style="font-weight: bold">standard gauze dressing (SD)</span>; Group 2, CX; Group 3, HC; and Group 4, QC. Each agent was applied with 5 minutes of manual pressure followed by a standard field compression dressing. Hetastarch (500 mL) was infused over 30 minutes. Hemodynamic parameters were recorded over 180 minutes. Primary endpoints included rebleed and death.
RESULTS: )<span style="font-weight: bold">CX reduced rebleeding to 0% (p < 0.001)</span>, HC to 33% (95% CI = 19.7% to 46.3%, p = 0.038), and QC to 8% (95% CI = 3.3% to 15.7%, p = 0.001), compared to 83% (95% CI = 72.4% to 93.6%) for SD. <span style="font-weight: bold">CX improved survival to 100%</span> compared to SD at 50% (95% CI = 35.9% to 64.2%, p = 0.018). <span style="font-weight: bold">Survival for HC (67%) (95% CI = 53.7% to 80.3%) and QC (92%; 95% CI = 84.3% to 99.7%) did not differ from SD.</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">CONCLUSIONS: In this porcine model of uncontrolled hemorrhage, CX improved hemorrhage control and survival. CELOX is a viable alternative for the treatment of severe hemorrhage.</span>
</span>
Here is the link to the entire study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18211317 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JB Gleason</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
2. "It causes damage to tissue"... FALSE. The original product, as stated above, did have the potential to cause some tissue damage due to the heat. <span style="font-weight: bold">But that was tissue that would generally be excised from the wound cavity at surgery anyway since it was part of the contaminated wound tract.</span> As someone correctly stated, that product was for use treating life threatening bleeding. Given the choice of some burns or certain death from bleeding, I would opt for the burns every time.</div></div>
My understanding is that surgeons were having trouble when removing the QC because it also pulled the clot out with it, causing unnecessary bleeding. To my knowledge QC must be removed by cutting. Celox can be rinsed away with saline after the clot has formed. Any remaining will be broken down naturally.
"Chitosan is a natural polysaccharide (polymer made of sugars) and has been shown to be broken down to basic sugars (glucosamine & n-acetyl glucosamine) by lysozyme, one of the body’s normal enzymes." -- Manufacturer.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JB Gleason</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Quik Clot = FAIL. Really? Every branch of the U.S. military carries Quik Clot Combat Gauze in their IFAK's. It has been used thousands of times and saved hundreds of lives. It is in use domestically by numerous law enforcement and EMS services. It is commonly used in urban trauma centers to control bleeding prior to surgery. Basically, there are a bunch of soldiers walking around that would tend to disagree with your assessment.</div></div>
I don't doubt that it's better than nothing... but there are better products out there. What an agency chooses to issue often has more to do with costs/supply. If I have to choose, I'm picking the best. YMMV
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JB Gleason</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And, by the way, yeah-yeah-yeah this is like my third post on Sniper's Hide so everyone jam on their keyboards about what a dick I am for daring to disagree with what they wrote. Lack of posts and being a new guy doesn't mean I don't happen to know a whole bunch about this particular subject. I joined this forum to learn about long range shooting but this subject caught my eye. This happens to be what I do, pre-hospital trauma medicine, so I thought I would attempt to help educate y'all on some of the misconceptions being floated out there. If this gets me flamed then I give up.
</div></div>
Thanks for assuming we're all dicks before you even get to know us. The info here benefits everyone, that's why I am here. I don't know everything & if someone out there has better knowledge to me, then I would like to learn that. In the end our entire community benefits from these discussions, even at times if we disagree initially. </div></div>
When was that letter written?
We had our 18D's brief us that the original QC was not to be used due to the intense heat it produced, causing burn damage in addition to the initial wound, not because of it was difficult to remove in the OR. Our whole team stopped using it because of that as was the case with most teams we ran into on the roads.
When the new stuff came out then the story changed. Some of the guys carried it for situations where a tourniquet could not be used as in the pelvic region for example.
Also, just cause the Army uses it is no reason to use it. Anyone that has been in the army knows that. Sometimes it's the last thing you want to use.
Again, A LOT has been learned since the beginning of the war and a lot of medical TTP's have changed because of it. Also, combat medicine is a bit different than regular back in the world medicine.