• Jacob Chen, Avi Benov, Roy Nadler, Geva Landau, Alex Sorkin, James K Aden, John F Kragh, and Elon Glassberg.
• J Spec Oper Med. 2016 Jan 1; 16 (1): 36-42.

BackgroundJunctional hemorrhage is a common cause of battlefield death but little is known about testing of junctional tourniquet models by medics. The purpose of the testing described herein is to assess military experience in junctional tourniquet use in simulated prehospital care.MethodsFourteen medics were to use the following four junctional tourniquets: Combat Ready Clamp (CRoC), Abdominal Aortic Junctional Tourniquet (AAJT), Junctional Emergency Treatment Tool (JETT), and SAM Junctional Tourniquet (SJT). The five assessment categories were safety, effectiveness, time to effectiveness, and two categories of user preference: (1) by all models assessed, and (2) by only the model most preferred. Users ranked preference by answering, "If you had to go to war today and you could only choose one, which tourniquet would you choose to bring?"ResultsAll tourniquet uses were safe. By the time the first five testers were done, all three AAJT models had been broken. CRoC and AAJT had the highest percentage effectiveness as their difference was not statistically significant. SJT and JETT had fastest mean times to effectiveness as their difference was not significant. For preference, using each user's ranking of all models assessed, SJT and AAJT were most preferred as their difference was not significant. For each user's most preferred model, SJT, AAJT, and JETT were most preferred as their difference was not significant.ConclusionIn the five assessment categories, multiple tourniquet models performed similarly well; SJT and AAJT performed best in four categories, JETT was best in three, and CRoC was best in two. Differences between the top-ranked models in each category were not statistically significant.2016.

18 keywords...

hide…