Quick Clot

[ABN Monk]

are there good reasons not to use quik clot? i have several left over from OIF in my kit, but the army stopped playing with it and gave us HEMCON bandages (which they also stopped giving out). What are the reasons the military stopped issuing these two products, and are they worth holding onto for emergency use in the field? Or, are they dangerous?

[Spade]

I would really like to hear any negative reasons as I have considered getting some for a bug out kit

[RetreatHell]

I am a HUGE proponent of QuikClot, as I would be dead had it not been for that wonderful powder!

Six years ago, on April 12, 2003 while serving in Iraq as a US Marine Infantryman during the initial invasion of that country, I was shot under the left armpit by an AK-47 fired by a Fedayeen Fighter from a distance of roughly 30-40 feet away. The bullet also severed my spinal cord, completely and permanently paralyzing me from the waist down... trust me when I say that I was in a real bad way.

The Navy Corpsman who came to my aid on the battlefield poured QuikClot on my entry wound to help stop the bleeding. Not only did it instantly stop the bleeding, but because it basically cauterized the wound and gave me a nasty chemical burn it kept me awake. As soon as he poured the powder on my entry wound, I remember softly yelping (my lung was punctured too by the bullet so I couldn't scream) and clenching and clawing the dirt with my fingernails because of the intense pain. That might sound awful, but it really helped to keep my eyes open for a little while longer, which in turn helped to keep my alive as well.

The only downside I can possibly see with QuikClot is that it gives patients a nasty chemical burn... but so ****ing what? I'd rather have the large tennis-ball-size chemical burn under my left armpit and be ALIVE than not have the burn and be rotting six feet under.

The burn required a skin graft too, which sucked, but like I said, it ain't that big a deal in the larger scheme of things.

If I were you I'd hold onto the QuikClot just in case. However, just don't use it unless the circumstances are truly life-threatening, as there's no need to burn the hell out of someone unless they are dying.

That's just my two cents. I'm not a doctor or medical professional, just a jarhead whose life was undoubtably saved by QuikClot.

-Paul

[civilian]

Main arguments against it is the likelihood of a serious burn. That and folks really weren't being trained to use the stuff properly. I still keep a few packs in my kit, because at the end of the day the stuff does tend to work when used properly.

RH, glad you pulled through that experience.

[Spade]

thanks for the info guys

[PA PATRIOT]

Any info for HEMCON bandages or the new sponge that hit the market?

[M4Fundi]

When you say, "Main arguments against it is the likelihood of a serious burn. That and folks really weren't being trained to use the stuff properly." Do you mean the soldiers were not using the stuff effectively or using it incorrectly so that it did not actually stop bleeding? or caused MORE damage? Or were the soldiers pouring it in every GSW and causing the burns when a medic would have deemed the GSW did not need QClot and as a result many non life threatening GSWs had burns and excessive debridement...? Just curious if it was not being used effectively...or... was being used unnecessarily?

[Cascades236]

I was under the impression that the newer variations made with chitosan didn't have the chemical burn issues. Was I told wrong?

[civilian]

Basically all of the above. A lot of folks are taught to pretty much rip the package open and start pouring, but there's a lot more involved. Proper cleaning of the wound, getting the correct amount of quikclot to the source of the bleeding (I've seen guys in the field just pour it into the hole thinking that will do it), compressing the wound properly, etc, all come into play. Forgetting to dry up as much water as possible before applying it was also an issue. That stuff touches water and you better have a small fountain ready to wash it away. What I've seen (mainly from my time in Iraq) is a rush to use it on small, but heavily bleeding wounds, where conventional methods would have arguably been just as effective, without the burning that can result. We're also talking about a situation where each man is given a couple packets, but only two medics or in some instances 1 medic is on the team. While the medics are usually pretty well versed on the use of the stuff or can adequately supervise its use, you give Joe a packet and run him through a 30 minute module on how the stuff should be used and you end up with situations where it's being poured all over the place and some dude is being burnt like a mofo.

When you say, "Main arguments against it is the likelihood of a serious burn. That and folks really weren't being trained to use the stuff properly." Do you mean the soldiers were not using the stuff effectively or using it incorrectly so that it did not actually stop bleeding? or caused MORE damage? Or were the soldiers pouring it in every GSW and causing the burns when a medic would have deemed the GSW did not need QClot and as a result many non life threatening GSWs had burns and excessive debridement...? Just curious if it was not being used effectively...or... was being used unnecessarily?

[civilian]

I'll have to check what they gave me in '07, which was the last time I asked for a couple packages. Recall the medic mentioning a change in the formula, but can't remember right now.

I was under the impression that the newer variations made with chitosan didn't have the chemical burn issues. Was I told wrong?