WoundStat use in battlefield trauma temp stopped

[chadbag]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-12-23-woundtstat_N.htm

[Gutshot John]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-12-23-woundtstat_N.htm

My inclination as both a civilian and retired military medic is that the story doesn't provide enough information.

For instance, what does WoundStat do that other HCM (Quik-Clot) don't? Is it really superior? If not why test it? Is there something about this particular product formulation that leads to blood-clots? How are these clots different than other complications? How often do they occur? Lastly does the POTENTIAL risk from blood-clots outweigh the REAL benefit of preventing shock?

It's kind of like the whole notion of vaccines and autism. Yes the preservatives may cause complications in 1 out of 100,000, but does that outweigh the benefit of millions of lives saved through vaccination?

USA Today is wonderful for their lack of depth.

[Gutshot John]

This figure from the article is wrong.


Today, 90% of injured troops survive their wounds, the highest rate of any war, Cordts said in an interview. He credited better training of combat medics, better body armor the troops wear and better tactics they use on the battlefield, as well improved bandages, tourniquets and so on.

IIRC during the Vietnam war, the figure was 98% of wounded (that received definitive care within an hour) survived their battlefield injuries. Today it's north of 99%.

During Korea it was about 90%.

[JSantoro]

Bear in mind, we are talking about the Special Olympics of print news, here.

I want to say that WoundStat is supposed to be less likely to cause the slight chemical burns that QuikClot sometimes does; it can sometimes heat up to 140deg, like an MRE food heater. Also, the fibrin in QuikClot is extracted from cow blood, and has caused some cases of anaphylaxis (sp?), though I may be mixing up articles in my head.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The proiblem with USA Today is twofold. One, it seems I never learn anything by reading the article, the headline has it all. Two, it should be called "USA Yesterday". USA TOday is The Drudge Report.

[lalakai]

i looked into this when putting together my patrol kit, and instead i opted for these http://www.hemcon.com/Products/HemConBandageOverview.aspx. Had to get a doctor's prescription to order them, but my doc knows what I do, and he had not trouble helping me with the order. Definitely not cheap, and hopefully they'll remain in their packages until i'm dust, but...................................

[Iraqgunz]

lalakai,

I agree that the HEMCON is probably the better choice. I have spoken with quite a few medics and they don't like the burns that Quik-Clot leaves and I understand that it is very difficult to clean out of the wound. Another one that I have heard is good is Celox.

[MC988]

All of them are last resort, when direct pressure and turniquets aren't doing the job. Keeping that in mind, they are all awesome at what they do, but have different draw backs. Depending on their contents (shellfish-allergic reaction), consinsitency (powder/granules- blown out by arterial bleeding or wind, pooling blood has to be removed), and burns (caused by intended reaction).

Wound Stat's mentioned draw back is increased clotting risk upstream of the wound, but the alternative if not used is probably death.

Quick Clot causes burns, but the alternative is probably death. (There is a newer quick clot formula which lowers the burn risk, as well as an bandage impregnated version which gets rid of the problems with the granules/powder version).

Hemcon and Celox (one of them, I believe is manufacturd using shellfish) are good, as are the above. Just remember, when they are used, other options have been exausted.