User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 1:26:37 PM EDT
[#1]
Personally I would just stick with the Celox products because it wont burn and you do not need to detox your body after using it like the quick clot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 4:00:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Personally I would just stick with the Celox products because it wont burn and you do not need to detox your body after using it like the quick clot. I'm not sure where you are getting your information but none of the hemostatic agents on the market today require a detox or burn when applied. You have to wash out the area after care but that's sort of true with any open wound situation. BTW, Celox is better in some cases but in windy or unstable conditions I'd prefer combat gauze. I also don't own any Celox and own plenty of sponges/combat gauze. -Emt1581 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 4:35:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure where you are getting your information but none of the hemostatic agents on the market today require a detox or burn when applied. You have to wash out the area after care but that's sort of true with any open wound situation. BTW, Celox is better in some cases but in windy or unstable conditions I'd prefer combat gauze. I also don't own any Celox and own plenty of sponges/combat gauze. -Emt1581 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Personally I would just stick with the Celox products because it wont burn and you do not need to detox your body after using it like the quick clot. I'm not sure where you are getting your information but none of the hemostatic agents on the market today require a detox or burn when applied. You have to wash out the area after care but that's sort of true with any open wound situation. BTW, Celox is better in some cases but in windy or unstable conditions I'd prefer combat gauze. I also don't own any Celox and own plenty of sponges/combat gauze. -Emt1581 QuickClot will not burn but it's mechanism of action will kill tissue that it comes in contact with making recovery more difficult and potentially causing permanent damage to things like nerves. . Celox will not kill tissue and does better in clinical trials. They are all dependent on application AND direct pressure which a lot of people seem to forget. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 4:40:48 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
QuickClot will not burn but it's mechanism of action will kill tissue that it comes in contact with making recovery more difficult and potentially causing permanent damage to things like nerves. . Celox will not kill tissue and does better in clinical trials. They are all dependent on application AND direct pressure which a lot of people seem to forget. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Personally I would just stick with the Celox products because it wont burn and you do not need to detox your body after using it like the quick clot. I'm not sure where you are getting your information but none of the hemostatic agents on the market today require a detox or burn when applied. You have to wash out the area after care but that's sort of true with any open wound situation. BTW, Celox is better in some cases but in windy or unstable conditions I'd prefer combat gauze. I also don't own any Celox and own plenty of sponges/combat gauze. -Emt1581 QuickClot will not burn but it's mechanism of action will kill tissue that it comes in contact with making recovery more difficult and potentially causing permanent damage to things like nerves. . Celox will not kill tissue and does better in clinical trials. They are all dependent on application AND direct pressure which a lot of people seem to forget. And again, if you manage to slice an artery open in your basement or kitchen, fine use the Celox. But anywhere outdoors, on the water, or in low-light/dark conditions I'll take QuikClot Gauze/Sponge...Gauze moreso. I personally could care less about tissue if my hemostatic agent doesn't get where it needs to go. And in my region we are not approved to use the granules for several of the reasons I'm talking about. Contained packages only. -Emt1581 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 5:26:37 PM EDT
[#5]
No they wont work against each other. But they are NOT magic blood stoppers either, you still need direct pressure, elevation, etc. Gauze is safer than granules.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 5:56:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And again, if you manage to slice an artery open in your basement or kitchen, fine use the Celox. But anywhere outdoors, on the water, or in low-light/dark conditions I'll take QuikClot Gauze/Sponge...Gauze moreso. I personally could care less about tissue if my hemostatic agent doesn't get where it needs to go. And in my region we are not approved to use the granules for several of the reasons I'm talking about. Contained packages only. -Emt1581 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Personally I would just stick with the Celox products because it wont burn and you do not need to detox your body after using it like the quick clot. I'm not sure where you are getting your information but none of the hemostatic agents on the market today require a detox or burn when applied. You have to wash out the area after care but that's sort of true with any open wound situation. BTW, Celox is better in some cases but in windy or unstable conditions I'd prefer combat gauze. I also don't own any Celox and own plenty of sponges/combat gauze. -Emt1581 QuickClot will not burn but it's mechanism of action will kill tissue that it comes in contact with making recovery more difficult and potentially causing permanent damage to things like nerves. . Celox will not kill tissue and does better in clinical trials. They are all dependent on application AND direct pressure which a lot of people seem to forget. And again, if you manage to slice an artery open in your basement or kitchen, fine use the Celox. But anywhere outdoors, on the water, or in low-light/dark conditions I'll take QuikClot Gauze/Sponge...Gauze moreso. I personally could care less about tissue if my hemostatic agent doesn't get where it needs to go. And in my region we are not approved to use the granules for several of the reasons I'm talking about. Contained packages only. -Emt1581 Celox Rapid Ribbon Does the same thing as QuickClot gauze/sponge better and safer. I had nerve damage from unnecessary irrigation with iodine and it sucks. Why risk it when there is an option. I did just fine with everything except an amputation using just direct pressure for 15 years. It might be nice to have but the training, skill and experience to use any treatment is what is really important. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 6:08:11 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Celox Rapid Ribbon Does the same thing as QuickClot gauze/sponge better and safer. I had nerve damage from unnecessary irrigation with iodine and it sucks. Why risk it when there is an option. I did just fine with everything except an amputation using just direct pressure for 15 years. It might be nice to have but the training, skill and experience to use any treatment is what is really important. Seems like it's essentially identical delivery as the gauze but a different solution comprising the granules. If it's better, ok, use it. But I know of no one that uses it and haven't been able to find a ton of field data on it. The same can't be said for gauze. All the police agencies around here use it, military, etc. If over time they all switch, I've got no problem updating/switching. EDIT: Plus you mentioned the irrigation is what caused your damage yes? Was that due to an interaction with the clotting agent in the gauze that the ribbon wouldn't have yielded? -Emt1581 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 6:22:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seems like it's essentially identical delivery as the gauze but a different solution comprising the granules. If it's better, ok, use it. But I know of no one that uses it and haven't been able to find a ton of field data on it. The same can't be said for gauze. All the police agencies around here use it, military, etc. If over time they all switch, I've got no problem updating/switching. EDIT: Plus you mentioned the irrigation is what caused your damage yes? Was that due to an interaction with the clotting agent in the gauze that the ribbon wouldn't have yielded? -Emt1581 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Celox Rapid Ribbon Does the same thing as QuickClot gauze/sponge better and safer. I had nerve damage from unnecessary irrigation with iodine and it sucks. Why risk it when there is an option. I did just fine with everything except an amputation using just direct pressure for 15 years. It might be nice to have but the training, skill and experience to use any treatment is what is really important. Seems like it's essentially identical delivery as the gauze but a different solution comprising the granules. If it's better, ok, use it. But I know of no one that uses it and haven't been able to find a ton of field data on it. The same can't be said for gauze. All the police agencies around here use it, military, etc. If over time they all switch, I've got no problem updating/switching. EDIT: Plus you mentioned the irrigation is what caused your damage yes? Was that due to an interaction with the clotting agent in the gauze that the ribbon wouldn't have yielded? -Emt1581 No. I was in Mexico and put a 4/0 hook through a finger. The standard of care down there seems to be irrigation with iodine and I wasn't really paying attention when they started. The iodine will obviously kill anything it comes in contact with that has a permeable cell wall and that included the nerve to the medial side of the finger. Celox has plenty of trial and clinical data available and has rated better than Quickclot in all comparison trials. The Quickclot pulls water from all of the tissue it contacts and will cause necrosis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 6:29:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. I was in Mexico and put a 4/0 hook through a finger. The standard of care down there seems to be irrigation with iodine and I wasn't really paying attention when they started. The iodine will obviously kill anything it comes in contact with that has a permeable cell wall and that included the nerve to the medial side of the finger. Celox has plenty of trial and clinical data available and has rated better than Quickclot in all comparison trials. The Quickclot pulls water from all of the tissue it contacts and will cause necrosis. Sounds like your experience in Mexico was due to malpractice more than the clotting agent. As for the trials and data...has it caused any police, federal agencies, military, etc. to switch to it? Necrosis isn't fun (and I'll take a dead body over a necrotic limb/wound any day as far as smell goes)...but the purpose of any of these products is short term care...not to heal anything. It just gives you time to get to a hospital. And I have a hard time believing that 10-30min on a wound site is going to cause a massive amount of necrosis and permanent damage. Now you and a few others mentioned the importance of pressure and I completely agree. If you can get a CAT on and get it to work for you, I'd prefer that to powder, gauze, ribbon, etc. But again, that's a temp. solution until you can get to a hospital. -Emt1581 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 6:57:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like your experience in Mexico was due to malpractice more than the clotting agent. As for the trials and data...has it caused any police, federal agencies, military, etc. to switch to it? Necrosis isn't fun (and I'll take a dead body over a necrotic limb/wound any day as far as smell goes)...but the purpose of any of these products is short term care...not to heal anything. It just gives you time to get to a hospital. And I have a hard time believing that 10-30min on a wound site is going to cause a massive amount of necrosis and permanent damage. Now you and a few others mentioned the importance of pressure and I completely agree. If you can get a CAT on and get it to work for you, I'd prefer that to powder, gauze, ribbon, etc. But again, that's a temp. solution until you can get to a hospital. -Emt1581 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. I was in Mexico and put a 4/0 hook through a finger. The standard of care down there seems to be irrigation with iodine and I wasn't really paying attention when they started. The iodine will obviously kill anything it comes in contact with that has a permeable cell wall and that included the nerve to the medial side of the finger. Celox has plenty of trial and clinical data available and has rated better than Quickclot in all comparison trials. The Quickclot pulls water from all of the tissue it contacts and will cause necrosis. Sounds like your experience in Mexico was due to malpractice more than the clotting agent. As for the trials and data...has it caused any police, federal agencies, military, etc. to switch to it? Necrosis isn't fun (and I'll take a dead body over a necrotic limb/wound any day as far as smell goes)...but the purpose of any of these products is short term care...not to heal anything. It just gives you time to get to a hospital. And I have a hard time believing that 10-30min on a wound site is going to cause a massive amount of necrosis and permanent damage. Now you and a few others mentioned the importance of pressure and I completely agree. If you can get a CAT on and get it to work for you, I'd prefer that to powder, gauze, ribbon, etc. But again, that's a temp. solution until you can get to a hospital. -Emt1581 Yeah, it's a press release but I don't feel like tracking down the CoTCCC releae - http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/committee-on-tactical-combat-casualty-care-cotccc-adds-celox-gauze-as-approved-hemorrhage-treatment-254929261.html You need to look at the studies if you want to stay ahead of treatment standards. The big bureaucracies are always behind the time in accepting anything new. Any tissue that comes in contact with QuickClot will have a really good chance of becoming necrotic in minutes. It can be surgically excised but it's better not to kill the tissue in the first place. If you look at Grey's Anatomy you will see that there are a lot of nerves in close proximity of the kind of big vessels that you would be packing. Not worth the risk when there is a choice. There was a time in this country where iodine was routinely used to irrigate open wounds, think about what your mom probably did when you were a kid. We stopped here but a lot of other places haven't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 7:03:54 PM EDT
[#11]
My experience with quick clot. Knife wound about 5-6 inches long. About 3/4 inches deep. All muscle. My buddy patted the bulk of the blood from around the wound and then jammed that quick Clot shit in there. Filled the hole compleatly. Applied pressure. It stung like crazy for about 30 seconds. Replaced the gause twice in the next 10 minutes. Rewrapped with 3 layers of gause and an ace bandage. Couple cocktails...sleep. Still good in the morning.
Doctor not on Island. Screw it. It's not leaking. I wait a couple days. Changed dressing a couple times. Oops...idiot. Read the the fucking package. My own fault. Not supposed to leave that shit in the wound. I see the doc he looks at me  . Then  . Says this is going to hurt. I have to scrub all that shit out of the wound.
Shoots me up all around the wound and gets busy. Not fun. Infected on top of it. Get to medical help ASAP after using any of that shit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 7:38:33 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Personally I would just stick with the Celox products because it wont burn and you do not need to detox your body after using it like the quick clot. Your information is horribly outdated. That is applicable to the old version of the product that has not been manufactured since 2008. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2014 8:24:15 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your information is horribly outdated. That is applicable to the old version of the product that has not been manufactured since 2008. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Personally I would just stick with the Celox products because it wont burn and you do not need to detox your body after using it like the quick clot. Your information is horribly outdated. That is applicable to the old version of the product that has not been manufactured since 2008. Well that is good to know. I base my comment on the research I did when I was deciding which brand of clotting agent to get. Even including a sort of report/review of the quick clot in a medical journal. Just seemed to me that the Celox was a safer product overall. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2014 8:45:32 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well that is good to know. I base my comment on the research I did when I was deciding which brand of clotting agent to get. Even including a sort of report/review of the quick clot in a medical journal. Just seemed to me that the Celox was a safer product overall. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Personally I would just stick with the Celox products because it wont burn and you do not need to detox your body after using it like the quick clot. Your information is horribly outdated. That is applicable to the old version of the product that has not been manufactured since 2008. Well that is good to know. I base my comment on the research I did when I was deciding which brand of clotting agent to get. Even including a sort of report/review of the quick clot in a medical journal. Just seemed to me that the Celox was a safer product overall. In the most recent studies, the efficacy of each is almost identical, however Celox has some advantages for folks on anti-platelet or anti-coagulant therapy.(Personally quite important to me) On a somewhat related topic, Just this morning, became of this....interesting work coming out of some of the Rambling Wreck Engineers at Georgia Tech: HemoHalt ACT |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2014 2:47:25 PM EDT
[#15]
The Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care (CoTCCC) approved the use of Celox Gauze and ChitoGauze for hemorrhage control. The latest study from the Naval Medical Research Unit (NMRU) showed impressive results from both Celox Gauze and ChitoGauze. These were based on Combat Gauze as the standard and both showed better results when compared to Combat Gauze.
Survivability Rates in the NMRU Study Celox Gauze = 90% Combat Gauze XL = 80% ChitoGauze = 70% Combat Gauze (standard) = 60% Celox Trauma Gauze = 50% Some further info here: -The Celox Trauma Gauze is the same gauze that did rather poorly in the USAISR study several years ago, it is not manufactured anymore. -Celox Gauze is not Celox Rapid. Celox Rapid shows great results but was not part of the NMRU study. It is NOT approved as of yet. -Combat Gauze XL at 80% vs Combat Gauze (standard) at 60% is further evidence that the more product you have, the better the result. This is good news in the world of hemostatic agents, three different agents are now approved for military use. QuickClot ACS, First Response, Sport or whatever branding you have does not work. Get rid of it and go with one of the gauze agents above. If you want granules the only thing to use is Celox. I keep Combat Gauze and Celox-A in my range kit. My IFAK's only have Combat Gauze in them. I will be switching to Celox Gauze when my current Combat Gauze expires based on the most recent research. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2014 5:23:06 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care (CoTCCC) approved the use of Celox Gauze and ChitoGauze for hemorrhage control. The latest study from the Naval Medical Research Unit (NMRU) showed impressive results from both Celox Gauze and ChitoGauze. These were based on Combat Gauze as the standard and both showed better results when compared to Combat Gauze. Survivability Rates in the NMRU Study Celox Gauze = 90% Combat Gauze XL = 80% ChitoGauze = 70% Combat Gauze (standard) = 60% Celox Trauma Gauze = 50% Some further info here: -The Celox Trauma Gauze is the same gauze that did rather poorly in the USAISR study several years ago, it is not manufactured anymore. -Celox Gauze is not Celox Rapid. Celox Rapid shows great results but was not part of the NMRU study. It is NOT approved as of yet. -Combat Gauze XL at 80% vs Combat Gauze (standard) at 60% is further evidence that the more product you have, the better the result. This is good news in the world of hemostatic agents, three different agents are now approved for military use. QuickClot ACS, First Response, Sport or whatever branding you have does not work. Get rid of it and go with one of the gauze agents above. If you want granules the only thing to use is Celox. I keep Combat Gauze and Celox-A in my range kit. My IFAK's only have Combat Gauze in them. I will be switching to Celox Gauze when my current Combat Gauze expires based on the most recent research. Do you have any links? I'd like to take a look because it seems pretty impressive for Celox. As I originally said, I'm not opposed to switching, I just need to see painfully obvious reason to do so. Thanks for sharing! 
-Emt1581 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2014 7:26:11 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have any links? I'd like to take a look because it seems pretty impressive for Celox. As I originally said, I'm not opposed to switching, I just need to see painfully obvious reason to do so. Thanks for sharing!
-Emt1581 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care (CoTCCC) approved the use of Celox Gauze and ChitoGauze for hemorrhage control. The latest study from the Naval Medical Research Unit (NMRU) showed impressive results from both Celox Gauze and ChitoGauze. These were based on Combat Gauze as the standard and both showed better results when compared to Combat Gauze. Survivability Rates in the NMRU Study Celox Gauze = 90% Combat Gauze XL = 80% ChitoGauze = 70% Combat Gauze (standard) = 60% Celox Trauma Gauze = 50% Some further info here: -The Celox Trauma Gauze is the same gauze that did rather poorly in the USAISR study several years ago, it is not manufactured anymore. -Celox Gauze is not Celox Rapid. Celox Rapid shows great results but was not part of the NMRU study. It is NOT approved as of yet. -Combat Gauze XL at 80% vs Combat Gauze (standard) at 60% is further evidence that the more product you have, the better the result. This is good news in the world of hemostatic agents, three different agents are now approved for military use. QuickClot ACS, First Response, Sport or whatever branding you have does not work. Get rid of it and go with one of the gauze agents above. If you want granules the only thing to use is Celox. I keep Combat Gauze and Celox-A in my range kit. My IFAK's only have Combat Gauze in them. I will be switching to Celox Gauze when my current Combat Gauze expires based on the most recent research. Do you have any links? I'd like to take a look because it seems pretty impressive for Celox. As I originally said, I'm not opposed to switching, I just need to see painfully obvious reason to do so. Thanks for sharing!
-Emt1581 NAMRU-SA Report |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2014 1:31:28 PM EDT
[#18]
Little thread hi-jack along the Celox line...
It's been a while since my training (3 years) and tech advances faster than I can keep up. We used Quik-Clot and was told it was for limbs only, never for the torso. From a product guide I recently read you can use enclosed Celox products on all areas of the body. Obviously there are some benefits to being able to use this product for torso or neck wounds but I'm having trouble tracking down anything that relates to the "do not use if" scenario. I imagine it would be unwise to shove this stuff anywhere near an organ to clot a bleed. Anyone happen to have a link or could offer input towards this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2014 4:19:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Tag for all the knowledge. Its hard to separate all the facts and fiction between the two brands.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2014 4:57:53 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Little thread hi-jack along the Celox line... It's been a while since my training (3 years) and tech advances faster than I can keep up. We used Quik-Clot and was told it was for limbs only, never for the torso. From a product guide I recently read you can use enclosed Celox products on all areas of the body. Obviously there are some benefits to being able to use this product for torso or neck wounds but I'm having trouble tracking down anything that relates to the "do not use if" scenario. I imagine it would be unwise to shove this stuff anywhere near an organ to clot a bleed. Anyone happen to have a link or could offer input towards this? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Little thread hi-jack along the Celox line... It's been a while since my training (3 years) and tech advances faster than I can keep up. We used Quik-Clot and was told it was for limbs only, never for the torso. From a product guide I recently read you can use enclosed Celox products on all areas of the body. Obviously there are some benefits to being able to use this product for torso or neck wounds but I'm having trouble tracking down anything that relates to the "do not use if" scenario. I imagine it would be unwise to shove this stuff anywhere near an organ to clot a bleed. Anyone happen to have a link or could offer input towards this? I imagine it would be unwise to shove this stuff anywhere near an organ to clot a bleed I would have no reservations about shoving it into a lacerated liver, for example. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2014 5:17:27 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tag for all the knowledge. Its hard to separate all the facts and fiction between the two brands. A group of TCCC (Tactical Combat Casualty Care) studies released in May 2013 show significantly insignificant differences in efficacy between Quicik Clot Gauze and Celox Gauze. One study showed significantly better results over both with Celox Rapid. This pattern is repeated in every study I've reviewed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2014 9:54:33 PM EDT
[#22]
I'm going to throw out a contrary and probably unpopular opinion here.
This topic gets far more attention than it deserves. The current clot aiding agents are all about the same in their efficacy. In the real world they are seldom used, and for all the time I've spent on the receiving end of CASEVACS I can't say I've ever once seen a combat casualty come in in whom I thought (a) a hemostatic dressing should've been used but wasn't, or (b) a hemostatic dressing was used and made the difference between survival and death / major morbidity. Basic first aid skills, direct pressure, tourniquets, and rapid transport to professional care are what you need, not a $45 piece of gauze. Save your money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2014 5:33:23 PM EDT
[#23]
Point taken. But I try to prepare for all those little 1% chance of happening scenarios. My goal is to never have to say "so and so would be alive today if I had spent 50 dollars" I'm also looking into this stuff for the event one of my dogs is attacked. We live in mountain lion country.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2014 8:42:55 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm going to throw out a contrary and probably unpopular opinion here. This topic gets far more attention than it deserves. The current clot aiding agents are all about the same in their efficacy. In the real world they are seldom used, and for all the time I've spent on the receiving end of CASEVACS I can't say I've ever once seen a combat casualty come in in whom I thought (a) a hemostatic dressing should've been used but wasn't, or (b) a hemostatic dressing was used and made the difference between survival and death / major morbidity. Basic first aid skills, direct pressure, tourniquets, and rapid transport to professional care are what you need, not a $45 piece of gauze. Save your money. Some of us are not surrounded by medics and helicopter evacs. Some of us venture away from populated areas with modern conveniences like, EMTs, paramedics, ambulances, and trauma centers five minutes away. For example you and your hunting partner are an hour and a half from civilization, if ambulatory. Or you are are 30 minutes, if ambulatory, from your hunting buddy? Who are then still an hour from areas suitable for helicopter evac. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2014 8:57:29 AM EDT
[#25]
For those who feel that hemostatic agents like quikclot/celox aren't needed...it should be noted that there are multiple arterial sites that you can't use a tourniquet on. And if the argument is to get hemostat/forceps...good luck digging around a site that has blood fountaining out of it trying to get a clamp on in the cold, rain, snow, dark, low-light, etc. As I said earlier I'll gladly take a bunch of material I can just jam into a wound site.
-Emt1581 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2014 2:37:21 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some of us are not surrounded by medics and helicopter evacs. Some of us venture away from populated areas with modern conveniences like, EMTs, paramedics, ambulances, and trauma centers five minutes away. For example you and your hunting partner are an hour and a half from civilization, if ambulatory. Or you are are 30 minutes, if ambulatory, from your hunting buddy? Who are then still an hour from areas suitable for helicopter evac. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm going to throw out a contrary and probably unpopular opinion here. This topic gets far more attention than it deserves. The current clot aiding agents are all about the same in their efficacy. In the real world they are seldom used, and for all the time I've spent on the receiving end of CASEVACS I can't say I've ever once seen a combat casualty come in in whom I thought (a) a hemostatic dressing should've been used but wasn't, or (b) a hemostatic dressing was used and made the difference between survival and death / major morbidity. Basic first aid skills, direct pressure, tourniquets, and rapid transport to professional care are what you need, not a $45 piece of gauze. Save your money. Some of us are not surrounded by medics and helicopter evacs. Some of us venture away from populated areas with modern conveniences like, EMTs, paramedics, ambulances, and trauma centers five minutes away. For example you and your hunting partner are an hour and a half from civilization, if ambulatory. Or you are are 30 minutes, if ambulatory, from your hunting buddy? Who are then still an hour from areas suitable for helicopter evac. Or you are in the city 5 minutes from a Level I and circumstances prevent extrication, extraction, or transport. Look at Pittsburgh in April 4th, 2009. The scene could not be made secure to extract two injured officers. There are many instances where 911 response (LE, Fire, EMS) has been delayed. The point is these tools were created for a specific purpose, hemorrhage not amenable to a tourniquet. They work, quantitative research demonstrates they work, qualitative research from the field backs up that data. Why not put every tool in your bag that you can to increase your chance of survival? They may be seldom used, but if you need it and don't have it, you don't get a second chance to put it in your kit. It is not a huge cost, they take up almost no space, so really what is the downside? If you have proper training (I teach with a great wound packing prop), there is no downside. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2014 3:43:42 PM EDT
[#27]
The gauze is not for wrapping wounds, it is for packing them. I'm familiar with the QC combat gauze, I assume the Celox is the same deal. You don't cram a sponge in there and then wrap it with the gauze, you forget the sponge, pack the wound with the combat gauze, and then wrap it with a normal bandage (tourniquet if necessary, direct pressure still critical and tourniquet as last resort if you can't stop the bleeding). The gauze has an advantage over the sponge because it is more efficient in making contact with damaged tissues when used for packing, hence it's popularity over sponges. The sponges are better than nothing and still useful, the gauze is better than the sponge, but they really don't need to be used in conjunction... Unless it's a massive wound, I guess, in which case you're probably fucked anyway. But using the combat gauze (QC or Celox) as a wrap is a complete waste, that is not what it is for - it is to pack the wound with, not wrap it.
QC Combat Gauze + standard Israeli bandage FTW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2014 4:10:46 AM EDT
[#28]
A better solution---
http://www.actcel.com/howitworks.html Completely absorbed by the body. This technology is changing fast, they haven't even manufactured granules in many years for either QuikClot or Celox. You need continuing education on a regular basis to keep up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2014 10:51:42 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A better solution--- http://www.actcel.com/howitworks.html Completely absorbed by the body. This technology is changing fast, they haven't even manufactured granules in many years for either QuikClot or Celox. You need continuing education on a regular basis to keep up. They still make and sell Celox granules. The ActCel stuff is not designed for arterial bleeds. It is designed for scraps and minor lacerations and punctures. They sell these in a max size of 4x4. You would need dozens to stop a femoral artery bleed, if it worked at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2014 10:57:34 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They still make and sell Celox granules. The ActCel stuff is not designed for arterial bleeds. It is designed for scraps and minor lacerations and punctures. They sell these in a max size of 4x4. You would need dozens to stop a femoral artery bleed, if it worked at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A better solution--- http://www.actcel.com/howitworks.html Completely absorbed by the body. This technology is changing fast, they haven't even manufactured granules in many years for either QuikClot or Celox. You need continuing education on a regular basis to keep up. They still make and sell Celox granules. The ActCel stuff is not designed for arterial bleeds. It is designed for scraps and minor lacerations and punctures. They sell these in a max size of 4x4. You would need dozens to stop a femoral artery bleed, if it worked at all. Wow, I stand corrected on the Celox. The ActCel is good for deep penetrating wounds- can be left in place, that's what the factory rep told us at a recent tac med conference. They are offering it in new sizes etc- he had a huge roll of it that he demonstrated with. I dunno if it has been released yet though..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2014 10:59:42 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A better solution--- http://www.actcel.com/howitworks.html Completely absorbed by the body. This technology is changing fast, they haven't even manufactured granules in many years for either QuikClot or Celox. You need continuing education on a regular basis to keep up. That stuff doesn't look like its suitable for major bleeding. Not sure if its a better solution, but possibly another tool in the toolbox |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2014 6:30:37 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A better solution--- http://www.actcel.com/howitworks.html Completely absorbed by the body. This technology is changing fast, they haven't even manufactured granules in many years for either QuikClot or Celox. You need continuing education on a regular basis to keep up. Bzzzt. Wrong answer. http://www.celoxmedical.com/usa/products/usaceloxgranules/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2014 3:49:46 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bzzzt. Wrong answer. http://www.celoxmedical.com/usa/products/usaceloxgranules/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A better solution--- http://www.actcel.com/howitworks.html Completely absorbed by the body. This technology is changing fast, they haven't even manufactured granules in many years for either QuikClot or Celox. You need continuing education on a regular basis to keep up. Bzzzt. Wrong answer. http://www.celoxmedical.com/usa/products/usaceloxgranules/ You might look up TWO posts.....Thanks for playing.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2014 7:49:09 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You might look up TWO posts.....Thanks for playing.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A better solution--- http://www.actcel.com/howitworks.html Completely absorbed by the body. This technology is changing fast, they haven't even manufactured granules in many years for either QuikClot or Celox. You need continuing education on a regular basis to keep up. Bzzzt. Wrong answer. http://www.celoxmedical.com/usa/products/usaceloxgranules/ You might look up TWO posts.....Thanks for playing.... You might want to check your facts before posting so that several posters don't have to come in and correct your erroneous information. Please keep that in mind for future posts, OK. Thanks for playing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2014 8:13:39 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You might want to check your facts before posting so that several posters don't have to come in and correct your erroneous information. Please keep that in mind for future posts, OK. Thanks for playing. "Several Posters" didn't correct me ONE did and I noted as much. Go the hell back to GD where your attitude belongs. Is school out again already? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2014 9:18:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Several Posters" didn't correct me ONE did and I noted as much. Go the hell back to GD where your attitude belongs. Is school out again already? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You might want to check your facts before posting so that several posters don't have to come in and correct your erroneous information. Please keep that in mind for future posts, OK. Thanks for playing. "Several Posters" didn't correct me ONE did and I noted as much. Go the hell back to GD where your attitude belongs. Is school out again already? OK two. 
Still does not change the fact that you posted erroneous information. Then you got an attitude about the second correction.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2014 2:35:44 PM EDT
[#37]
So with the research I've personally done in the past week I have decided to go with celox for sure. What I'm still working on is if I want the rapid z fold or the regular z fold gauze. And does anybody know of the best/cheapest place to buy celox?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2014 5:35:09 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So with the research I've personally done in the past week I have decided to go with celox for sure. What I'm still working on is if I want the rapid z fold or the regular z fold gauze. And does anybody know of the best/cheapest place to buy celox? Rescue Essentials has always been a good place. The Rapid Gauze is showing good results with internal testing. The regular gauze is approved by CoTCCC. I think you are OK with either, I will be buying the Regular Z-Fold in the link above, when my Combat Gauze expires. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2014 5:48:53 PM EDT
[#39]
I cannot recommend Rescue Essentials enough.
They are a great company to do business with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2014 2:53:52 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I cannot recommend Rescue Essentials enough. They are a great company to do business with. Thanks for the suggestion guys. That place looks like a good spot. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
