Next-generation tourniquet: Recommendations for future capabilities and design requirements.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Advances in tourniquet development must meet new military needs for future large-scale combat operations or civilian mass casualty scenarios. This includes the potential use of engineering and automation technologies to provide advanced tourniquet features. A comprehensive set of design capabilities and requirements for an intelligent or smart tourniquet needed to meet the challenges currently does not exist. The goal of this project was to identify key features and capabilities that should be considered for the development of next-generation tourniquets. METHODS: We used a modified Delphi consensus technique to survey a panel of 34 tourniquet subject matter experts to rate various statements and potential design characteristics relevant to tourniquets systems and their use scenarios. Three iterative rounds of surveys were held, followed by virtual working group meetings, to determine importance or agreement with any given statement. We used a tiered consensus system to determine final agreement over key features that were viewed as important or unimportant features or capabilities. This information was used to refine and clarify the necessary tourniquet design features and adjust questions for the following surveys. RESULTS: Key features and capabilities of various were agreed upon by the panelists when consensus was reached. Some tourniquet features that were agreed upon included but are not limited to Capable of being used longer than 2 hours, applied and monitored by anyone, data displays, semiautomated capabilities with inherent overrides, automated monitoring with notifications and alerts, and provide recommended actions. CONCLUSION: We were able to identify key tourniquet features that will be important for future device development. These consensus results can guide future inventors, researchers, and manufacturers to develop a portfolio of next-generation tourniquets for enhancing the capabilities of a prehospital medical provider. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level V.