Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

P113: A systematic review and meta-analysis of tourniquet devices for speed of application, successful hemostasis and patient tolerance

  • C. Picard (a1) and M. J. Douma (a1)

Abstract

Introduction: Tourniquets are a mainstay of hemorrhage management. However, there is insufficient evidence to guide device sselection. This review analyses the literature on tourniquets, for the following outcomes: lower-extremity arterial hemostasis, application speed, and pain. Methods: Studies were limited to English. Non-human studies, case series, and intra-operative applications were excluded. A systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database from 1992 to Dec 2017 was performed. Article citations were also assessed. Results: Twenty-one studies met criteria, testing 28 tourniquet devices. The most popular devices for arterial hemostasis were the Combat Application Tourniquet (C-A-T) (662 applications), Special Operations Forces Tactical Tourniquet (SOFTT) (307 applications), blood pressure cuff (80 applications), rubber tubing (58 applications) and the Emergency Medical Tourniquet (EMT) (52 applications). The blood pressure cuff achieved the highest (weighted averages) rate of 99% (95% CI 93 to 100) based on four studies of 80 applications. Followed by the EMT which achieved 83% (95% CI 72 to 93), based on three studies of 52 applications (p<0.01). The fastest device to apply, taking 17 seconds (95% CI 11 to 23), was surgical tubing, based on two studies totalling 30 applications. The next fastest was the blood pressure cuff, requiring 20 seconds (95% CI 18 to 22), based on two studies totaling 58 applications (though there was no statistical difference in application time, p=0.08). Tolerance could not be analyzed, due to heterogeneity of outcome measures. Conclusion: This is the first meta-analysis of tourniquet outcomes. The literature lacks a standard approach to device application. The quality of evidence is of very low due to the small sample sizes, lack of blinding, selective outcome reporting and result inconsistency. Common medical equipment appear to outperform commercial tourniquets for arterial hemostasis and speed of application; however, they are some of the least studied devices.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      P113: A systematic review and meta-analysis of tourniquet devices for speed of application, successful hemostasis and patient tolerance
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      P113: A systematic review and meta-analysis of tourniquet devices for speed of application, successful hemostasis and patient tolerance
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      P113: A systematic review and meta-analysis of tourniquet devices for speed of application, successful hemostasis and patient tolerance
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author

Keywords

P113: A systematic review and meta-analysis of tourniquet devices for speed of application, successful hemostasis and patient tolerance

  • C. Picard (a1) and M. J. Douma (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed