The military emergency tourniquet program's lessons learned with devices and designs.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to report the device lessons learned from an emergency tourniquet program and, in particular, to emphasize analysis of discarded devices recovered after clinical use. METHODS: Discarded tourniquet devices were analyzed after use in emergency care of war casualties to determine wear and tear patterns, effectiveness rates, and associations among device designs. RESULTS: The 159 devices recovered comprised seven designs. Emergency & Military Tourniquet (92%) and Combat Application Tourniquet (79%) effectiveness rates were significantly different from each other and better than other tourniquets (p < 0.002) as the most effective ambulance and field tourniquets, respectively. Designs had specific pitfalls (e.g., sand-clogged ratchets) and strengths (the pneumatic design was least painful). Every device had wear, abrasions, or deformity about the band edges or bladder. User understanding of how devices work best helped attain better results. Some desirable traits (e.g., one-handed application, use for entrapped limbs) were rarely needed. Tourniquets fit casualty limbs well. CONCLUSIONS: Correct user actions (e.g., following the instructions to remove slack before twisting) led to device effectiveness, but misuse did not. Users often assumed that optimal use required more force, but this was associated with misuse. Training should include tourniquet pearls and pitfalls.

Minor morbidity with emergency tourniquet use to stop bleeding in severe limb trauma: research, history, and reconciling advocates and abolitionists.

BACKGROUND: In prior reports of active data collection, we demonstrated that early use of emergency tourniquets is associated with improved survival and only minor morbidity. To check these new and important results, we continued critical evaluation of tourniquet use for 6 more months in the current study to see if results were consistent. METHODS: We continued a prospective survey of casualties and their records at a combat support hospital in Baghdad who had tourniquets used at a combat hospital in Baghdad (NCT00517166 at ClinicalTrials.gov). RESULTS: After comparable methods were verified for both the first and current studies, we report the results of 499 patients who had 862 tourniquets applied on 651 limbs. The clinical results were consistent. No limbs were lost from tourniquet use. CONCLUSION: We found that morbidity was minor in light of major survival benefits consistent with prior reports.

Survey of the indications for use of emergency tourniquets.

UNLABELLED: Indications and evidence are limited, multiple and complex for emergency tourniquet use. Good recent outcomes challenge historically poor outcomes. Optimal tourniquet use in trauma care appears to depend on adequate devices, modern doctrine, refined training, speedy evacuation, and performance improvement. Challenges remain in estimation of blood loss volumes, lesion lethality, and casualty propensity to survive hemorrhage. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Evidence gaps persist regarding emergency tourniquet use indications in prehospital and emergency department settings as indication data are rarely reported. METHODS: Data on emergency tourniquet use was analyzed from a large clinical study (NCT00517166 at ClinicalTrials.gov). The study included 728 casualties with 953 limbs with tourniquets. The median casualty age was 26 years (range, 4-70). We compared all other known datasets to this clinical study. RESULTS: Tourniquet use was prehospital in 671 limbs (70%), hospital only in 104 limbs (11%), and both prehospital and hospital in 169 limbs (18%).Major hemorrhage was observed at or before the hospital in 487 (51%) limbs and minor hemorrhage was observed at the hospital in 463 limbs (49%). Anatomic lesions indicating tourniquets included open fractures (27%), amputations (26%), soft tissue wounds (20%), and vascular wounds (17%). Situations, as opposed to anatomic lesions, indicating tourniquets included bleeding from multiple sites other than limbs (24%), hospital mass casualty situations (1%), one multiple injury casualty needed an airway procedure, and one casualty had an impaled object. CONCLUSIONS: The current indication for emergency tourniquet use is any compressible limb wound that the applier assesses as having possibly lethal hemorrhage. This indication has demonstrated good outcomes only when devices, training, doctrine, evacuation, and research have been optimal. Analysis of emergency tourniquet indications is complex and inadequately evidenced, and further study is prudent. Prehospital data reporting may fill knowledge gaps.