Quick Clot?

MikeTheBlade

MikeTheBlade

Forum Probie
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hello i just recently became an EMT and i always wondered why don't departments use this stuff? i seen videos of it stopping a femoral artery flow for the military.


what are the pros and cons?
 
Pros
1. Proven to stop bleeding

Cons
1. Gets very hot when gets into contact with water. Z-Medica had to reformulate the mixture so that it does not get as hot. Big improvement now. Contact with water is contraindicated whenever possible, unless the entire area is being irrigated with a lot of water. But the initial reports of severe burns with the first product design has turned off a lot of medical directors who want to err on the side of caution.
2. You may need to locate the source of bleeding -- you can't just dump it and pray.
3. There aren't many departments out there that see severe, catastrophic bleeding which is what QuikClot was developed for (i.e. military situations). The product itself is quite expensive compared to kerlix and 4x4s.

It perhaps is useful to think of QuikClot as a chemical tourniquet -- used as a last resort. Some people think Quikclot is great (I like to think so), but the fact remains that not all civillian EMS agencies have the need to adopt it. LEOs, SWAT and tac medics on the other hand....
 
there is in fact use for quick clot in non tactical ems. We see more situations with major traumas than tactical ems sees. I am more likely to be the first medical responder on Major MVCs, stabbings and shootings than a tactical medic on an ESU team.
 
Yeah i would like to see it with the right trainning protocals i think it can fit in with EMS
 
From what I understand because I have not yet used it, but discusses with those that have is it is more for peripheral lacerations and bleeding. Especially those related to shrapnel, explosive and partial deep avulsions. Those that not traditionally seen in civilian EMS as well that can be controlled by more simplistic measures and tertiary care is within short response.

I have both good and bad about the product as what was described.

Remember, GSW and puncture wounds such as stabbings, the bleeding is usually located internally not externally, and I have heard that the wound has to be massively irrigated after the product has been used. This would actually delay surgical intervention, thus really not being beneficial.

I would like to see multiple studies before consideration to place in civilian EMS. Citing the benefits and disadvantages.

R/r 911
 
we carry it on our rigs and my lt and captain swear by it because it has saved quite a few lives for them. basically, it's a subsitute for a tourniquet. after all other attempts of bleeding control have been tried then you use it. gauze + pressure > second gauze > elevation > pressure point > tourniquet. i guess since we run 5k calls a year and don't have the safest areas we like to be more cautious. we choose to carry quikclot, epipens, atropens, albuterol...

it's used on arterial bleeds only on extremities. no head/torso/abd bleeds. you place it on, wrap roller gauze around it a few times with pressure, PLACE THE PACKAGING BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND LAYER OF GAUZE (the packaging has instructions for the ER staff on how to remove the quikclot.)
 
I'm curious as to how well this would work for arterial bleeds in a disaster situation when we can't get the pt. to the hospital due to infrastructure damage and / or lack of resources .


Craig
 
Like Rid stated, it takes a lot of time to clean out the wound before surgery.

It is great in combat or tactical EMS. In those situations you don't have the time to apply direct pressure or pressure dressings. That is why tourniquets and quick clot are first line in combat.

You don't want to be holding direct pressure while being shot at. You do what you you need to, then you get them evac'ed for proper treatment.

It might be nice to have on the truck, as a last line treatment. maybe for an extended transport trauma.
 
We got permission from our MPD to carry this in our SAR packs. Depending on the brand it can cause an exothermic reaction but some of the newer ones have gotten better in this area. That's the best part of any military conflict, great strides are made in trauma managment. I'm betting we'll see something like this looking for a general market application after the military use has declined. Right now, what I've heard is the biggest problem with getting this for use in EMS is that the military has a corner on the market for the product. Personally I can wait. They need it more than we do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top