QuickClot - Blood Clotting Agent

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • PsYcHo SqUiRrEl

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 23, 2008
    99
    6
    Greenetucky
    As I recall, the Indiana State EMS commission discussed allowing EMS personnel to use QC several years ago and it was decide then that not enough was known about it at that time to recommend it's use.
    Since then I've talked with several military personnel that have rode with me during their paramedic clinicals and none that I spoke with liked it for the previous stated reasons.
    I think the idea of QC was good, but like many things in the medical field it just didn't work out as hoped. Personally I'd stick with the tried and true direct pressure with a pressure dressing, pressure points, and as a last resort a tourniquet.
     

    IndyBeerman

    Was a real life Beerman.....
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jun 2, 2008
    7,700
    113
    Plainfield
    What about the QC sport, the new ones they have for civies that are sponges? That's all I have. Not the powder. When it comes down to it I understand the tourniquit would be better, but what about a body part you cant do it as easy with. Like a shoulder?

    The QC sport or QC gauze is what I was thinking about, not the original pour into the wound kind along with a tourniquet.
     

    ChalupaCabras

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 30, 2009
    1,374
    48
    LaPorte / Kingsbury
    Look into Hemcon bandages. They are adhesive bandage pads which are treated with a chemical that has the same effect as quick-clot, but with no particulates or exothermic reaction.

    The chemical is sourced from a crustacean, and not a mineral. The pads are expensive as all hell though.
     

    Fireman610

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    May 27, 2008
    190
    28
    Down by the River
    Thats right Redneck Break out the old mast trousers:rockwoot: Guys save yoursefl the trouble the hassle and the $$$$ Stick with good ol Direct pressure,bandages gauze towels etc, and a torniquint... If your just dead set on spending $$ to stop some bleeding go to Sams Club or Walmart or Costco whatever you have around you and buy the biggest container of Maxi Pads (Super Absorbant) as you can find or stock up on ABD pads from a medical supply place.
    Just remember Just because its new and claims to be good dosnt always mean it is.(we have all learned this at some point in time) When dealing with injured persons.. remember the K.I.S.S. Method Keep It Simple Stupid. If you do too much and your not a train Medical Professional. You could end up a stinky creek without a paddle. Good Sam Act will only protect you soo far once you hit Stupidity or Hero (in your own mind) level Some judge and atty will make an example out of you. Just my :twocents:
     

    PsYcHo SqUiRrEl

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 23, 2008
    99
    6
    Greenetucky
    If your just dead set on spending $$ to stop some bleeding go to Sams Club or Walmart or Costco whatever you have around you and buy the biggest container of Maxi Pads (Super Absorbant) as you can find or stock up on ABD pads from a medical supply place.

    That's funny! I actually carry a few maxi's in my small fanny pack kit I have in my truck. I love the looks on new EMT student's faces when they ask what to put in their personal kits and I tell them to get maxi pads for trauma dressings. I've also had to use them once on a rather nasty chainsaw wound to the upper arm and they worked great.
     

    Shay

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Mar 17, 2008
    2,364
    48
    Indy
    Here is a portion of a memo from 2008 to update the TCCC guidelines. I thought some here might find this part interesting because of the topic of this thread.

    [FONT=&quot]1. I would like to make you aware of two recent changes to the Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) guidelines. These two changes address issues critical to the preservation of life and eyesight in combat casualties and are forwarded for your consideration.

    2. A number of new hemostatic agents have recently become available. These new agents have undergone testing both at the U.S. Army Institute for Surgical Research (USAISR) and the Naval Medical Research Center (NMRC). The findings from these studies were presented to the Committee on TCCC (CoTCCC) on [/FONT][FONT=&quot]1 April 2008[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Three different swine bleeding models were used: a 6mm femoral artery punch model at USAISR and both a 4mm femoral artery punch model and a femoral artery/vein transaction model at NMRC. Both the NMRC and the USAISR studies found Combat Gauze and Woundstat to be consistently more effective than the hemostatic agents HemCon and QuikClot previously recommended in the 2006 TCCC guidelines. No significant exothermic reaction was noted with either agent. Celox was also found to outperform the current agents, although it performed less well than WoundStat in the more severe USAISR model, where 10 of 10 Woundstat animal survived, 8 of 10 Combat Gauze animals survived, and 6 of 10 Celox animals survived. The reports detailing this research will be available shortly from USAISR and NMRC.

    3. In light of these findings, the CoTCCC voted to recommend Combat Gauze as the first line treatment for life-threatening hemorrhage that is not amenable to tourniquet placement. Woundstat is recommended as the backup agent in the event that Combat Gauze does not effectively control the hemorrhage. The primary reason for this order of priority is that combat medical personnel on the committee expressed a strong preference for a gauze-type hemostatic agent rather than a powder or granule. This preference is based on field experience that powder or granular agents do not work well in wounds where the bleeding vessel is at the bottom of a narrow wound tract. A gauze-type hemostatic agent is more effective in this setting. Combat Gauze was also noted to be more easily removable from the wound site at the time of surgical repair. Woundstat might, however, be very useful in circumstances where the first-line agent has been ineffective or where the characteristics of the wound make a granular agent preferable.

    [/FONT]
     

    jeremy

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 18, 2008
    16,482
    36
    Fiddler's Green
    Apply field dressing and evac to next higher medical care provider.
    Apply pressure dressing and evac to next higher medical care provider.
    Apply tourniquet and evac to next care provider.


    If the situation is so severe that the three above methods will not get some one to a hospital in 30 minutes or less. The magic powder stuff is not going to help out a whole lot either...
     

    rooster007

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 21, 2009
    415
    16
    KINGDOM OF CLERMONT
    Thanks Shay good info , been out five , so things do change somewhat . Will keep the 15 gram packs and will add the gauze .also some extra super absorbant tampons and maxipads this is a good low cost prep item.

    Interesting side note I watched a company dump an entire grain trailer of maxipads into a retention pond , after a industrial spill .:stretcher:
     
    Top Bottom