• John F Kragh, Donald L Parsons, Russ S Kotwal, Bijan S Kheirabadi, James K Aden, Robert T Gerhardt, David G Baer, and Michael A Dubick.
• J Spec Oper Med. 2014 Jan 1; 14 (3): 58-63.

BackgroundJunctional hemorrhage is a common cause of death on the battlefield, but there is no documented direct comparison for the use of junctional tourniquet models by US medics. The purpose of this testing is to assess military medic experience with the use of junctional tourniquets in simulated out-of-hospital trauma care.MethodsNine medics (seven men and two women) used four different junctional tourniquets: Combat Ready Clamp™ (CRoC™; http://www.combatmedicalsystems .com), Abdominal Aortic and Junctional Tourniquet™ (AAJT™; http://www.compressionworks.net), Junctional Emergency Treatment Tool (JETT™; http://www.narescue .com), and SAM Junctional Tourniquet® (SJT®; http://www.sammedical.com/products). These medics also acted as simulated casualties. Effectiveness percentages, as measured by stopped distal pulse by Doppler auscultation, and time to effectiveness were recorded in two tests per tourniquet (72 total tests). Tourniquet users ranked their preference of model by answering the question: "If you had to go to war today and you could only choose one, which tourniquet would you choose to bring?"ResultsAll tourniquets used were safe under the conditions of this study. Both the SJT and the CRoC had high effectiveness percentages; their rate difference was not statistically significant. The SJT and the CRoC had fast times to effectiveness; their time difference was not statistically significant. Users preferred the SJT and the CRoC; their ranked difference was not statistically significant.ConclusionThe SJT and the CRoC were equally effective and fast and were preferred by the participants.2014.

11 keywords...

hide…