TQ vs pressure dressing

[NeoNeanderthal]

It is a real TQ, surgical tourniquets are used in operating rooms all over the world, that's where the idea came from.

It's definitely harder to apply without a lot of practice, but it's very effective.

Correct. I should have said "conventional TQ" not "real TQ." Didn't mean to talk shit about my own tq! (i do have a cat on my belt med kit as well, but could never get used to having it mounted on my buttstock).

[Treehopr]

I'm just wondering if your going to attach a first aid item to your weapon, your basically prioritizing one item over all others. I would think that item should be a pressure dressing.

The OP original premise was a med kit item attached to your weapon, which would presume that you have that med kit item readily available on the weapon rather than simply having something with you as you go about your daily business (minus your rifle)

I wouldn't dispute the real world experiences of the two docs but I would submit that for a long time TQ's were considered a last resort item, so it would make sense that you wouldn't see those items being used until recently.

In a "normal" emergency situation, where there is no continued threat, where the resources outweigh the victim(s) and where professional responders can do what they're trained and paid to do, then much of the direct pressure/pressure dressing/10 min ride to hospital model works without the need for a TQ or a chest seal.

If you're in a scenario where those factors are absent and you may be on your own to self treat, a TQ may be more of a neccessity. The North Hollywood bank robbery being an example of LEO's who had to improvise TQ's. Those situations may be exceedingly rare but they do happen.

Consider the Boston Marathon bombings earlier this year, if that had happened 10 or 20 years ago, would the prevalence of TQ's been more or less likely?

Given the changes in medical protocols and training in the last 10 years, use of TQ's in a .mil setting is all but taken for granted; I believe that trend will carry over to the civilian side- whether its LEO or EMS and eventually trained "civilians"-

I remember the controversy surrounding QuikClot and other hemostatic agents when they first started being used, now you can find QC at Cabela's and TQ's can be ordered off of Amazon.

FWIW- I don't carry med gear on my rifle, but I wouldn't knock somebody else for doing it either.

[Gutshot John]

They used to have the old "paratroop packs" which were a TQ and a syrette of morphine issued to every paratroop on D-Day.

A modern equivalent is what the OP is talking about on a weapon mounted platform. Not a bad idea actually.

I'd vote for a SWAT-T with an H&H H-bandage, provides both options in a much smaller footprint than a OLAES/Israeli dressing, for much less cost than a CAT-T. You can even add a chest seal (non-valved) for no additional space which will plug other holes than just a punctured lung.

[Treehopr]

The OP's premise is that you are only allowed one.

I'd vote for the tq & morphine if allowed more than one ;-)

[currahee]

To be clear, my thoughts (premise) were that- if you're gonna carry this and that on your person (chest rig BOK etc) and you are thinking about one more thing to attach to your weapon- what would be the most logical?

I keep a BOK with CAT, IZZY and quick clot in my car and on my belt when "kitted out." I keep another CAT on my chest rig set up for self service, and at times keep another old school army pressure dressing on the other side.

My thinking is that if I've got my rifle with me the most likely (treatable) injuries would be torso bullet wounds, with extremity bullet wounds as second most likely.

Point of interest- the only time I have ever needed any of the serious trauma kit I am talking about was when I was 1st person at a traffic accident. I needed an Izzy or similar and was stuck using a towel. Luckily the paramedics showed up quickly. But you know what they say about statistical cases of one.

Neo- seeing your weapon was what started me on this train of thought. I have kept a pressure dressing on my stock before buy didn't like it. But was figuring I would try something attached to the forearm.

Gutshot- Thank you for telling me what was in the "paratrooper pack" I introduced those pics in my OP just to say -what's old is new again.

[NeoNeanderthal]

Neo- seeing your weapon was what started me on this train of thought. I have kept a pressure dressing on my stock before buy didn't like it. But was figuring I would try something attached to the forearm.

I got the idea from paul howe but couldn't stand the full size TQ on there. It's attached with coflex which helps squeeze it down tight but keeps it easy access. Im working on attaching one to a B5 stock in an efficient manner...I thought about getting a forend magpouch but i thought it'd be too big. I don't know how people stand to roll with a pmag or something that size on there.

[Arctic1]

The OP original premise was a med kit item attached to your weapon, which would presume that you have that med kit item readily available on the weapon rather than simply having something with you as you go about your daily business (minus your rifle)

I wouldn't dispute the real world experiences of the two docs but I would submit that for a long time TQ's were considered a last resort item, so it would make sense that you wouldn't see those items being used until recently.

In a "normal" emergency situation, where there is no continued threat, where the resources outweigh the victim(s) and where professional responders can do what they're trained and paid to do, then much of the direct pressure/pressure dressing/10 min ride to hospital model works without the need for a TQ or a chest seal.

If you're in a scenario where those factors are absent and you may be on your own to self treat, a TQ may be more of a neccessity. The North Hollywood bank robbery being an example of LEO's who had to improvise TQ's. Those situations may be exceedingly rare but they do happen.

Consider the Boston Marathon bombings earlier this year, if that had happened 10 or 20 years ago, would the prevalence of TQ's been more or less likely?

Given the changes in medical protocols and training in the last 10 years, use of TQ's in a .mil setting is all but taken for granted; I believe that trend will carry over to the civilian side- whether its LEO or EMS and eventually trained "civilians"-

I remember the controversy surrounding QuikClot and other hemostatic agents when they first started being used, now you can find QC at Cabela's and TQ's can be ordered off of Amazon.

FWIW- I don't carry med gear on my rifle, but I wouldn't knock somebody else for doing it either.

I don't think anybody is knocking or debating the efficacy of a TQ or saying that is should remain a last resort intervention.

The fact remains, however, that an improperly attached TQ;

-not tight enough
-in the wrong location

can cause issues and compound the bleed that neccessitated the TQ in the first place. Worst case is a venous TQ that could kill the pt quicker du to increased bleeding.

TQ's have great advantages when you are alone, in that it allows you continued use of both hands when applied, so that you can continue to examine the patient while not having to compress a bleed at the same time.

TQ's are great tools, but requires training and regular refreshment training in order to as efficient as it can be.

[Treehopr]

I don't think anybody is knocking or debating the efficacy of a TQ or saying that is should remain a last resort intervention.

Tourniquets are great tools. First responders (some locations more than others) should all have one in their bag and know how to use it for the very rare circumstance that they might need it. As for the rest of us, it's likely just another item of useless gear to lug around

I was specifically addressing the above point by HMAC. Again, I don't dispute his experience with seeing few TQ's applied in a pre-hospital environment but pose the question as to whether TQ's were un-needed or whether it's because their use was discouraged until (relatively) recently.

The fact remains, however, that an improperly attached TQ;

-not tight enough
-in the wrong location

can cause issues and compound the bleed that neccessitated the TQ in the first place. Worst case is a venous TQ that could kill the pt quicker du to increased bleeding.

TQ's have great advantages when you are alone, in that it allows you continued use of both hands when applied, so that you can continue to examine the patient while not having to compress a bleed at the same time.

TQ's are great tools, but requires training and regular refreshment training in order to as efficient as it can be.

Concur on all points but I think those same standards can be applied to any medical kit item or weapon system.

The OP posed the question of what one item you would have attached to your weapon, which as I read it- meant that you have nothing else.

Not that you have your TQ/Izzy mounted to your weapon and also happen to have a full IFAK on your belt/plate carrier/chest rig/range bag/trunk of your car... which he clarified in his most recent post.

Prior to that, he stated that you would have one item attached to your weapon and you would improvise the other.

If you could only have ONE item it would be a TQ- an item that, by definition, can only treat a wound to an extremity. OK

To make a reasonable facsimile of a pressure dressing you need a maxi-pad an ACE bandage(or roll of duct tape), to make a TQ you need a belt and a stick. Which would you rather be looking for when someone is bleeding out in front of you?

Obviously, if you have the IFAK in any of the above mentioned locations then you wouldn't need to improvise anything. So if I did have a pressure dressing attached to my rifle, I wouldn't be looking for a belt and a stick, I'd be looking for my TQ (along with the rest of my med kit)

Fortunately, I've never had to self treat for a GSW or similar penetrating trauma but I wonder how "easy" would it be to self apply an Israeli bandage to the torso compared to a TQ to an extremity.

[Hmac]

I was specifically addressing the above point by HMAC. Again, I don't dispute his experience with seeing few TQ's applied in a pre-hospital environment but pose the question as to whether TQ's were un-needed or whether it's because their use was discouraged until (relatively) recently.

Unneeded. I contend that the need for tourniquet application by civilians is very, very rare.

[NeoNeanderthal]

Unneeded. I contend that the need for tourniquet application by civilians is very, very rare.

Even at a shooting range? Statistically from the hospitals perspective I'm sure it is rare. But one of the ranges I belong to has had 2 self inflicted gunshots (both upper thigh), and thats not even the short bus range.

I do get your point about a TQ not being very likely to be used in everyday life, so it need not be included in EDC. But my rifle is not used in my everyday life. My gun would get used at the range or in response to a lethal threat. I feel like in both of those situations the likelihood of arterial bleeding would be higher than in your average hospital. Thats why i have one on my rifle, and in my kit but i don't carry one in a pocket everyday.