To clarify...Quick Clot makes the plungers with the hemostatic granules that you are referring to turning into concrete (what he's referring to in vid), they (Quick Clot) also makes hemostatic gauze
It has become vogue to make fun of individuals that carry tampons in their kit. I was a Navy SARC and contract medical instructor for US Army, US Navy and Saudi Army. Was on several prominent companies development teams for Items in your kit. I say all that to say this. We did a study with live tissue patients for wound packing and bleeding control. We had an MD from a trauma center in Boston overseeing the study. The study was to see what loss of effectiveness there would be using non hemostatic agents in the event that you were in an austere environment ran out and had no access to them. We used Quick clot gauze, chitosan pads( yes it was a while ago), plain z fold gauze and OB brand tampons. All wounds were packed with the exception of the chitosan pads which pieces were placed over the compromised area of the artery and then all wounds had a pressure dressing applied over the packing ( ace wraps and Israeli bandages were mostly used) the tourniquet was removed and at the 5 min mark the pressure dressing was removed to simulate compromise ie snagged on something when being moved by non medical personnel. When used by first responder level medical providers there was an insignificant difference between any of the packing. To be explicit the Tampon worked as well as the hemostatic gauze/z fold gauze/chitosan. The difference was so little that we started trying to make them fail after about 30 patients. And started removing the packing gently to preserve any formed clots. With the first responder level providers the chitosan was the clear leader but only by a small margin. When you changed the provider to 68W/Navy Corpsman level or better and the Hemostatic gauze was applied the way we trained it ( create a small ball at the end digitally manipulate the wound to find the source of the bleeding, place the ball of gauze directly on the compromised area of artery then pack the wound)hemostatic the leader by a small amount but again only when pulling the packing after 5 min. The place where the hemostatic truly out paced the others was applying it correctly and after a 1 min pause pulling the packing, which is totally unrealistic. Not everyone can afford or has access (or will have access when their current supply runs out) to hemostatic gauze, which is still my first choice. They can still be very well served with z fold or a tampon if a pressure dressing is applied. Honestly from what we saw with the study cut up pieces of sock would work. I have been in Afghanistan in the early days when they were running out of ALL medical equipment. Having other tools in your box is never a good Idea. MORE IMPORTANT than what cool gear you carry is to TRAIN, TRAIN, TRAIN. Medical is always a second thought until its needed. Be able to put on your own tourniquet when one hand is immobile and 3 fingers on the other are taped together. That is far more important than what you use as wound packing.
I'm an emergency physician that trained in an inner city in Michigan. I will share your view that packing material is less important than technique, we never needed celox etc to stop hemorrhage that wasn't requiring a tourniquet. That said, I have seen several attempted uses of tampons and not once were they effectively placed. I'm aware the personnel placing them were probably not as well trained (lay bystanders), but the point remains. I don't think arguing "I'm real good at wound packing and I made this terrible option work in test conditions" is really a good argument. I can kill with a .22lr but that doesn't make it a good fighting rifle caliber, know what I mean?
@@cm2973 i don't argue with that at all. And again if I have anything else I would prefer to use that. But I think that intentionally excluding something that may be marginally effective v/s no treatment is a loosing proposition in bleeding control. You and I don't see it as a zero sum game. Hell, if I don't have a t-shirt to tear up and use ill stick my finger in and find the source or revert to pressure points etc. I've found in teaching lay personnel over the years that lay personnel take it as a zero sum game. "I was taught as a kid tourniquets make you loose limbs so I couldn't use it and I was out of hemcon so there was nothing I can do" is a position I've found consistant over the years.. Our biggest problem is teaching everyone critical thinking in emergency situations. If we did better at that this conversation would be moot. I'm looking at it from the any bleeding control is better than none at all because all bleeding stops eventually.. You were treating those with in effectively placed tampons...not the mortician. And just so there is no question....if you have clotting agents....use them...they absolutely ROCK!
I was an Army medic for 7 years, and I work as an paramedic on a MICU team now. As a consideration for non-certified civilians (not holding a state appropriate EMS certification). Applying any intervention that breaks the surface of the skin or enters a body cavity is generally a bad idea. It will likely end in a law suit from the family of the deceased if the person you are trying to save expires on-scene or later on at the hospital. There are good semaritan laws in place to help protect you from adverse legal action, but you need to stay within a certain scope of practice to be covered. That being said if you and all your training buddies have the agreement ahead of time, and all take training together, on the use of more advanced interventions like a NDC on each other you may generally be ok. Still not recommended however. For any medical or trauma emergency in the states your best bet is to call 911. I love the video though, and really appreciate that you had a SME give you talking points to go over. One or two small points I noticed. When you showed the small packs of hemo guaze those were not actually hemo gauze, they are just compressed kerlix. Also, instead of ditching the steril packaging and throwing it over your shoulder. Instead take the package and tuck it into the collar of your shirt, or in between your chest and the top of your front plate. Another note on hemo gauze is to use one that has Kaolin instead of Chitosan. Chitosan can cause allergic reactions in patients with shell fish allergies, while Kaolin does not. I recommend combat guaze. Linked is a NIH article on kaolin gauze efficacy and safety in cardiac surgery. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10328980/ Overall great video. Keep doing what your doing. If you have any questions relating to medic stuff lmk, or hit up your PJ friend.
Valid points. With the continued hesitancy of medical providers, at least in my area, of using tourniquets there could be a potential suit there as well. Most medical directors here still list tourniquets as a last resort in the protocols. The shellfish reaction has been studied pretty extensively and has been put to bed although the myth still continues in the medical community for some reason. This is the first study that came up out of a bunch doing a search. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22128651/
Here from the start... Bros going to blow up if He stays consistent.
Thanks man, means a lot!
To clarify...Quick Clot makes the plungers with the hemostatic granules that you are referring to turning into concrete (what he's referring to in vid), they (Quick Clot) also makes hemostatic gauze
Yes good clarification, the granules are the concrete makers.
@@Grey_farm fantastic video though, more people should focus on med vs what new accessory/pew to get next
Heyoooo from the boys at Bedroom Defense!
My dawg!
Good content brother!
Thanks my guy!
It has become vogue to make fun of individuals that carry tampons in their kit. I was a Navy SARC and contract medical instructor for US Army, US Navy and Saudi Army. Was on several prominent companies development teams for Items in your kit. I say all that to say this. We did a study with live tissue patients for wound packing and bleeding control. We had an MD from a trauma center in Boston overseeing the study. The study was to see what loss of effectiveness there would be using non hemostatic agents in the event that you were in an austere environment ran out and had no access to them. We used Quick clot gauze, chitosan pads( yes it was a while ago), plain z fold gauze and OB brand tampons. All wounds were packed with the exception of the chitosan pads which pieces were placed over the compromised area of the artery and then all wounds had a pressure dressing applied over the packing ( ace wraps and Israeli bandages were mostly used) the tourniquet was removed and at the 5 min mark the pressure dressing was removed to simulate compromise ie snagged on something when being moved by non medical personnel. When used by first responder level medical providers there was an insignificant difference between any of the packing. To be explicit the Tampon worked as well as the hemostatic gauze/z fold gauze/chitosan. The difference was so little that we started trying to make them fail after about 30 patients. And started removing the packing gently to preserve any formed clots. With the first responder level providers the chitosan was the clear leader but only by a small margin. When you changed the provider to 68W/Navy Corpsman level or better and the Hemostatic gauze was applied the way we trained it ( create a small ball at the end digitally manipulate the wound to find the source of the bleeding, place the ball of gauze directly on the compromised area of artery then pack the wound)hemostatic the leader by a small amount but again only when pulling the packing after 5 min. The place where the hemostatic truly out paced the others was applying it correctly and after a 1 min pause pulling the packing, which is totally unrealistic. Not everyone can afford or has access (or will have access when their current supply runs out) to hemostatic gauze, which is still my first choice. They can still be very well served with z fold or a tampon if a pressure dressing is applied. Honestly from what we saw with the study cut up pieces of sock would work. I have been in Afghanistan in the early days when they were running out of ALL medical equipment. Having other tools in your box is never a good Idea. MORE IMPORTANT than what cool gear you carry is to TRAIN, TRAIN, TRAIN. Medical is always a second thought until its needed. Be able to put on your own tourniquet when one hand is immobile and 3 fingers on the other are taped together. That is far more important than what you use as wound packing.
I'm an emergency physician that trained in an inner city in Michigan. I will share your view that packing material is less important than technique, we never needed celox etc to stop hemorrhage that wasn't requiring a tourniquet. That said, I have seen several attempted uses of tampons and not once were they effectively placed. I'm aware the personnel placing them were probably not as well trained (lay bystanders), but the point remains. I don't think arguing "I'm real good at wound packing and I made this terrible option work in test conditions" is really a good argument. I can kill with a .22lr but that doesn't make it a good fighting rifle caliber, know what I mean?
@@cm2973 i don't argue with that at all. And again if I have anything else I would prefer to use that. But I think that intentionally excluding something that may be marginally effective v/s no treatment is a loosing proposition in bleeding control. You and I don't see it as a zero sum game. Hell, if I don't have a t-shirt to tear up and use ill stick my finger in and find the source or revert to pressure points etc. I've found in teaching lay personnel over the years that lay personnel take it as a zero sum game. "I was taught as a kid tourniquets make you loose limbs so I couldn't use it and I was out of hemcon so there was nothing I can do" is a position I've found consistant over the years.. Our biggest problem is teaching everyone critical thinking in emergency situations. If we did better at that this conversation would be moot. I'm looking at it from the any bleeding control is better than none at all because all bleeding stops eventually.. You were treating those with in effectively placed tampons...not the mortician. And just so there is no question....if you have clotting agents....use them...they absolutely ROCK!
I was an Army medic for 7 years, and I work as an paramedic on a MICU team now. As a consideration for non-certified civilians (not holding a state appropriate EMS certification). Applying any intervention that breaks the surface of the skin or enters a body cavity is generally a bad idea. It will likely end in a law suit from the family of the deceased if the person you are trying to save expires on-scene or later on at the hospital. There are good semaritan laws in place to help protect you from adverse legal action, but you need to stay within a certain scope of practice to be covered. That being said if you and all your training buddies have the agreement ahead of time, and all take training together, on the use of more advanced interventions like a NDC on each other you may generally be ok. Still not recommended however. For any medical or trauma emergency in the states your best bet is to call 911.
I love the video though, and really appreciate that you had a SME give you talking points to go over. One or two small points I noticed. When you showed the small packs of hemo guaze those were not actually hemo gauze, they are just compressed kerlix. Also, instead of ditching the steril packaging and throwing it over your shoulder. Instead take the package and tuck it into the collar of your shirt, or in between your chest and the top of your front plate. Another note on hemo gauze is to use one that has Kaolin instead of Chitosan. Chitosan can cause allergic reactions in patients with shell fish allergies, while Kaolin does not. I recommend combat guaze. Linked is a NIH article on kaolin gauze efficacy and safety in cardiac surgery. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10328980/
Overall great video. Keep doing what your doing. If you have any questions relating to medic stuff lmk, or hit up your PJ friend.
Valid points. With the continued hesitancy of medical providers, at least in my area, of using tourniquets there could be a potential suit there as well. Most medical directors here still list tourniquets as a last resort in the protocols.
The shellfish reaction has been studied pretty extensively and has been put to bed although the myth still continues in the medical community for some reason. This is the first study that came up out of a bunch doing a search. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22128651/
All very good points, thanks for your input my friend. Greatly appreciated
@@Grey_farm Any time man. I love talking pre-hospital medicine, and you make great videos.
Nice
Plz post more videos I dropped a sub to see if you do this was a great video
Will do bro! New videos every Friday!
What pouch is that?
He said blue force or lbt.
I double checked and it was a Blue Force Gear
🏴☠
Gas