Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:18:23.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

QuikClot Combat Gauze Use for Hemorrhage Control in Military Trauma: January 2009 Israel Defense Force Experience in the Gaza Strip—A Preliminary Report of 14 Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Yuval Ran ,
Eran Hadad ,
Saleh Daher ,
Ori Ganor ,
Jonathan Kohn ,
Yana Yegorov ,
Carmi Bartal ,
Nachman Ash  and
Gil Hirschhorn
Yuval Ran*
Affiliation:
Israel Defense Forces
Eran Hadad
Affiliation:
Israel Defense Forces
Saleh Daher
Affiliation:
Israel Defense Forces
Ori Ganor
Affiliation:
Israel Defense Forces
Jonathan Kohn
Affiliation:
Israel Defense Forces
Yana Yegorov
Affiliation:
Israel Defense Forces
Carmi Bartal
Affiliation:
Israel Defense Forces
Nachman Ash
Affiliation:
Israel Defense Forces
Gil Hirschhorn
Affiliation:
Israel Defense Forces
*
Shraga Refaeli 20, Petach Tiqwa, Israel E-mail: ranyuval@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Standard gauze field dressings and direct pressure occasionally are inadequate for the control of hemorrhage. QuikClot® Combat Gauze™ (QCG) combines surgical gauze with an inorganic material and is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and by the Israeli Standards Institute for external hemorrhage control. The purpose of this article is to report clinical use of this dressing during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza strip during January 2009.

Methods:

QuikClot Combat Gauze and the QCG guidelines were issued to advanced life support (ALS) providers during the preparations for the Operation.

All cases of injuries involving hemorrhage were reviewed, as well as interviews with the ALS providers (physicians and paramedics) and injured soldiers.

Results:

Fourteen uses of QCG were reported and reviewed (out of a total of 56 hemostatic interventions in 35 cases). Dressings were applied to injuries to the head, neck, axilla, buttocks, abdomen, back, and pelvis in 10 cases, and to extremities in four cases. In 13 cases (93%), injuries were caused by blast or gunshot mechanisms. The success rate was reported as 79% (11/14). Failure to control hemorrhage was reported in three cases in three different locations: neck, buttock, and thigh. All failures were attributed to severe soft tissue and vascular injuries. No complications or adverse events were reported.

Conclusions:

This report on the clinical field use of the QCG dressing by ALS providers suggests that it is an effective and safe product, and applicable for prehospital treatment of combat casualties. This report further suggests that QCG should be issued to medics as well as ALS providers. Larger clinical investigations are needed to confirm these findings.

Keywords

combat gauzecontrolhemorrhagehemostatic dressingIsrael Defense Force
Type
Brief Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 25 , Issue 6 , December 2010 , pp. 584 - 588
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Sauaia, A, Moore, FA, Moore, EE, et al: Epidemiology of trauma deaths: A reassessment. J Trauma 1995;38:185–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Baker, CC, Oppenheimer, L, Stephens, B, et al: Epidemiology of trauma deaths. Am J Surg 1980;140:144–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Trunkey, DD, Blaisdell, FW: Epidemiology of trauma. Sci Am 1988;4:1.Google Scholar
4.Bellamy, RF: Textbook of Military Medicine. Part 4. Falls Church, Virginia: Office of the Surgeon General, 1995.Google Scholar
5.Gofrit, ON, Leibovici, D, Shapira, SC, et al: The trimodal death distribution of trauma victims: Military experience from the Lebanon War. 1997; 162: 24–26.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Bellamy, RF: The causes of death in conventional land warfare: implications for combat casualty care research. Mil Med 1984;149:55–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Sohn, VY, Eckert, M, Martin, MJ, et al: Efficacy of three topical haemostatic agents applied by medics in lethal groin injury model. J Surg Res 2009;154:258–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Kheirabadi, BS, Edens, JW, Terrazas, IB, et al: Comparison of new haemostatic granules/powders with currently deployed haemostatic products in a lethal model of extremity arterial hemorrhage in swine. J Trauma 2009;66:316–326.Google Scholar
9.Clay, JG, Zieroid, D, Grayson, K, et al: Dextran polymer haemostatic dressing improves survival in liver injury model. J Surg Res 2009;155:89–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Engelhart, MS, Cho, SD, Tieu, BH, et al: A novel highly porous silica and chitosan-based haemostatic dressing is superior to HemCon and gauze sponges. J Trauma 2008;65:884–890.Google Scholar
11.Arnuad, F, Tomori, T, Carr, W, et al: Exothermic reaction in zeolite haemostatic dressing: QuikClot ACS and ACS+. Ann Biomed Eng 2008;36:1708–1713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Carraway, JW, Kent, D, Young, K, et al: Comparison of a new mineral based haemostatic agent to a commercially available granular zeolite agent for Heamostatis in a swine model of lethal extremity arterial hemorrhage. Resuscitation 2008;78:230–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Xie, H, Khajanchee, YS, Shaffer, BS: Chitosan haemostatic dressing for renal parenchymal wound sealing in a porcine model: Implications for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy technique. JSLS 2008;12:18–24.Google Scholar
14.Kozen, BG, Kircher, SJ, Henao, J, et al: An alternative haemostatic dressing: comparison of CELOX, HemCon, and QuikClot. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:74–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Ward, KR, Tiba, MH, Holbert, WH, et al: Comparison of a new haemostatic agent to current combat haemostatic agents in a swine model of lethal extremity arterial hemorrhage. J Trauma 2007; 63:276–283.Google Scholar
16.Gustafson, SB, Fulkerson, P, Bildfell, R, et al: Chitosan dressing provides hemostasis in swine femoral arterial injury model. Prehosp Emerg Care 2007;11:172–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Kheirabadi, BS, Acheson, EM, Deguzman, R, et al: The potential utility of fibrin sealant dressing in repair of vascular injury in swine. J Trauma 2007;62:94–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Arnaud, F, Tomori, T, Saito, R, et al: Comparative efficacy granular and bagged formulations of the haemostatic agent QuikClot. J Trauma 2007;63:775–782.Google ScholarPubMed
19.Ahuja, N, Ostomel, TA, Rhee, P, et al: Testing of modified zeolite haemostatic dressings in a large animal model of lethal groin injury. J Trauma 2006;61:1312–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Acheson, EM, Kheirabadi, BS, Deguzman, R, et al: Comparison of hemorrhage control agents applied to lethal extremity arterial hemorrhage in swine. J Trauma 2005;59:865–874.Google ScholarPubMed
21.Pusateri, AE, Delgado, AV, Dick, EJ, et al: Application of a granular mineral-based haemostatic agent (QuikClot) to reduce blood loss after grade V liver injury in swine. J Trauma 2004;57:555–562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Alam, HB, Chen, Z, Jaskille, A, et al: Application of zeolite haemostatic agent achieves 100% survival in a lethal model of complex groin injury in Swine. J Trauma 2004;56:974–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Pusateri, AE, Modrow, HE, Harris, RA, et al: Advanced haemostatic dressing development program: Animal model selection criteria and results of a study of nine haemostatic dressings in a model of severe large venous hemorrhage and hepatic injury in Swine. J Trauma 2003;55:518–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Alam, HB, Uy, GB, Miller, D, et al: Comparative analysis of haemostatic agents in a swine model of lethal groin injury. J Trauma 2003; 54:1077–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Rhee, P, Brown, C, Martin, M, et al: QuikClot use in trauma for hemorrhage control: case diaries of 103 documented uses. J Trauma 2008;64:1093–1099.Google Scholar
26.Brown, MA, Daya, MR, Worley, JA: Experience with chitosan dressings in a civilian EMS system. J Emerg Med 2007; Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
27.Wedmore, I, McManus, JG, Pusateri, AE, et al: A special report on the chitosan-based haemostatic dressing: experience in current combat operations. J Trauma 2006;60:655–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Haas, S: The use of a surgical patch coated with human coagulation factors in surgical routine: A multicenter post authorization surveillance. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2006;12:445–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Gal, O, Weiss, A, Dudckiewicz, M, et al: Injury characteristics among IDF soldiers during the Second Lebanon War. JIMM 2007;1:3–6.Google Scholar
30.Ran, Y, Hadad, E, Daher, S, et al: Injury characteristics among IDF soldiers during operation Cast Lead. JIMM 2009;6:157–161.Google Scholar
31.Kheirabadi, BS, Mace, JE, Terrazas, IB, et al: Safety evaluation of new hemostatic agents, smectite granules, and kaolin-coated gauze in a vascular injury wound model in swine. J Trauma 2010;68:269–278.Google Scholar