https://www.activeresponsetraining.n...esearch-review
Printable View
I had the opportunity to use the TMT and SOFT-T (or SOF-T Wide?) along with the latest CATs last October on simulated arterial bleed trauma dummies and uninjured roleplayers. I was impressed with both, despite my dislike of the older SOF-T’s. I really liked the TMT. I still really like CATs, although in live humans I sometimes have difficulty gaining hemorrhage control in certain patients.
I’ve been extremely unimpressed by any elastic tourniquet that I’ve messed with.
When I look at people carrying elastic TQ's, I get mildly disgusted. Especially when they aren't just internet commandoes and may need to use those on someone else.
Obese dialysis PTs.
True.
They are not very much like your average combatant out running around getting a traumatic bleed.
Their arterial system is also non anatomically connected to their venous system in that extremity and may require a TQ both above and below the bleed.
Yeah. CATs work well for Military aged and reasonably fit people.
Yes, specifically those two. Something MAY be better than nothing, but relying on something of a known lesser quality may not be a good way to go.
I don’t have personal experience with the SWATT, but a TEMS medic who was teaching a course at my department said SWATT’s are good for ped patients
Fair warning; they’re also slick as shit when they get wet with blood. I have two in my aid bag, mostly for K9 use, as I do prefer the CAT for its ease of use and reliability.
For what it’s worth, there is data coming out supporting a standard CAT on school age children.
https://pediatrics.aappublications.o...43/6/e20183447
SWAT-T is GTG on peds and animals. It's also a great compression wrap, longer than an ACE/control wrap, less slip on placement and more consistent during movement. It rolls smaller and can also be used for other splinting and packaging tasks. It's slippery when wet and can be hard to use in irregular positions.
I keep a bunch around, mindful of these attributes.
I don't know if anyone has had to move a patient with a SWAT-T, in training or for realsies, but depending on how and where they are applied, they are less than ideal. Still a decent secondary device.
That being said, if a limb is too small for a CAT 7. Often times direct pressure or an izzie dressing is more than plenty.
I've found that by nature of their design, they don't stay as secure as the windlass style TQ's. Especially when under a lot of tension around a large thigh for example. Moving or dragging patients it's been problematic on a few occasions. They work better as pressure dressings when they aren't wrapped as tightly.
I have plenty of SWAT-T's on hand and appreciate the versatility (Secondary TQ, splinting, sling, pressure dressing etc.), but a SOFT-W folds up just as small, is a better TQ, and like I stated before, if a limb is too small for a SOFTT or CAT, direct pressure or a pressure dressing is usually enough.
Have any of you guys trained with the NATO tourniquets? I imagine they’d be more effective than the elastic solutions in the marketplace.
Came here looking for a small TQ I could carry on my belt. Going to try the RATS Gen 2. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07H2YRZ7G/ref=dp_cerb_1
If you're getting a TQ from Amazon get this one:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ETMVQOI..._9qSCEb2VXMSVP
I have 4 of those. They are a CAT clone but a superior product IMHO. I've deployed with CATs and the Recon Medical TQs are superior.
Should have qualified. I wear a "dress" Crossbreed pistol belt with shorts or jeans. I'm looking for something unobtrusive to attach to it. If this RATs doesn't work I'll unfold a CAT and use rubber bands to attach it. I'm trying to see how prepared I can be with regular clothes and not filling up my pockets.
So far I carry my SIGP365 using an inside the belt holster, and using Sticky generic belt magazine holsters I carry my light, a 12rd mag, a thin CPR mask, and two rubber gloves. My pockets carry my phone and auto knife.
https://stickyholsters.com/belt-slider.html
https://www.amazon.com/Allen-Glenwoo...744381&sr=8-11
https://ratsmedical.com/collections/...rats-gen-2-red
https://www.redcross.org/store/cpr-k...t-aid-supplies
Two of the options I use to carry cat tq's are the eleven 10 rigid case on my belt or the riker nylon, AFAK if wearing pants.
https://www.rykernylongear.com/
http://www.1110gear.com/rigid-tq-cases/
Depends on how you define "factual evidence-based medicine"? Improved features are "factual evidence." Something that gets the job done and is easier to use is better. Something that doesn't break (and yes, I've broken CATs in training) would also be better. Would I love to see more impartial testing of the Recon Medical offering? Absolutely, that'd be great and might inspire improvements to the design that will only be revealed by independent testing. Is a new product something to be shunned simply because it doesn't have a mountain of recomendations backing it up? Absolutely not.
The current CAT GEN7 has a thicker windlass, single buckle and I've not had issues with the stitching.Quote:
Metal windlass, kevlar stitching, and the easier to use single buckle design probably have something to do with it.
It depends on the product. When we're talking about a pierce of lifesaving kit, yes. Until such time that it has been thoroughly tested by a reputable authority and demonstrated a good track record, there's no way I'm going to put a TQ (not just this one) into service. When I deploy a CAT, I know what to expect. When I teach classes, we discuss knockoffs and that at best, they're an unknown.Quote:
Is a new product something to be shunned simply because it doesn't have a mountain of recomendations backing it up? Absolutely not.
I guess we can agree to disagree and good on anyone that at least carries something and knows what to do with it. The CAT does cost twice as much, but I don't sweat the extra $15 and it's made in the USA (not China). Even though the CATs I use at work are not purchased by me, I bought additional ones (and a couple GEN 4 SOF TT-W) on my dime to carry in my personal kits.
I recieved the RATs TQ and it seems like it would work as a one handed TQ, but it is not less bulky than a CAT.
CATs (a 1 time use item) broken in training have often been applied dozens of times up to that point. I've never seen or heard of a CAT 7 breaking in real world applications. Not saying it can't or hasn't happened, but not often enough to use a $15 amazon knock-off in place. There's also nothing to say that any of those features are an actual improvement outside of dubious claims made by the manufacturer with no backing.
Actually, yes. Especially when it's a item where failure results in death.
Cut corners to save money in other things, not medical gear. I'll eat Ramen for a week before I try to save $15 on a TQ that's supposed to save a loved one, a co-worker, or my life.
I've used recons for training, because $15 a pop is easier to swallow than $30 for that role, but I wouldn't use or recommend them for real world applications unless a credible org like TCCC, TeCCC, NAEMT, DoD etc. say otherwise. "NTOA Member tested and approved 2018" means absolutely nothing.
There's too many other vetted options to bother with an unknown quantity.
These were military-issued Gen 6 Cats straight out of the package. I've seen it happen more than once. Heck, I've seen them come out of the package broken because Joe Snuffy had dropped something on his IFAK or landed wrong in a jump. I also remember the big hoopla about not having a TQ stored outside the IFAK because of them degrading through UV light exposure. Outliers to be sure, but they happen, and features that combat these issues are nice.
The complaints about Recon's offering boil down to it's not NAR, it's $15, and X group hasn't approved it. That's really no different than a decade ago when the "Colt 6920s or nothing" mentality ruled the roost. The argument that "you can spend $X and get a real CAT!" works as long as you ignore the improvements Recon has made, the price doesn't really matter, and the reasons for them not being approved seem mostly to lack of testing. I've got plenty of CATs, both Gen 6 and 7, I just like Recon's offering. They're an improved clone design, and given time, I think they'll be accepted.
All that said, I am trying to keep an open mind. If anyone has actual data about them failing or being rejected (as opposed to simply not being tested enough by third parties) I'd love to see it. Everything I've seen about them has been overwhelmingly positive, which matches my own experience.
I’ve got this new drug. It will control your heart rhythm better than Amiodarone, but it has not been FDA approved, and this is not part of a trial. Try it. Its better.
Edit: I’m not against new stuff. I just won’t be an early adopter. Risk vs reward and all.