Well depends on how high up is the injury but direct pressure with blood absobing bandage and tilting the entire body would help. Yes in this case the quick clot would be something to have. Also unless the wound is above the creese of your tight you can always find a pressure point.

I think it is a great product but even their instructions state that it may not work for high pressure wounds. I saw it being used and it works, one of the volunteer agencies in my town used it on the calf injury. Doc in the ER had a heart attack later on when he needed to clean stuff out and he didn't understant the way it worked. And think about this you got aorta with first branch being coronary, than renal, some abd stuff and femoral. We are talking some high pressure stuff here especially if the victim was active right before the injury happened (since every body system shots down to keep maximum blood flow for oxygenation). Also with small deep wounds quick clot may not be able to reach deep enough. So you stoped all the bleeding on the outside but you still have internal bleed. But sometimes it is still better than nothing.

I also saw smaller packs of their products on BQ website.

Now what really gets me is that according to quikclot website they have 100 % survivability and 0% mortality rate.

The new BQM catalog has Hemostatic gauze that might work out. # HG4402 $29.99, page 8 of the new catalog.

Dave

Some things are better left in their own package...If a wound is at such a high pressure area, then you may be at the PONR (point of no return) anyway. In over 15 years as a medic (NYC for more than 1/2 of it) I have NEVER had a wound that didn't start to resolve with direct pressure and elevation. I think I have used a pressure point only 1 or 2 times in all those years. If you look at a (ie.) groin wound too high up to use a pressure point, you are now talking about internal bleeding.

Guys, I don't know how many of you have any real world experience with quik clott, but it's dangerous stuff. I am set to deploy to Iraq in september and just received some supplementary first aid training for the newer kits that will be issued "in-country" and they told us Quik Clot CAUTERIZES the wounds closed. Yeah, my eyes got big too, I had thought it was some sort of clotting agent that just plugged the holes. They also were very adament about telling us to keep it DOWNWIND while using it because if it is ingested into the nose or lungs, it will kill you. I can only take this info at face value, it was given by my supervision and came from either DOD, or the company that makes the stuff.

From the QuikClot site

QuikClot brand hemostatic agent speeds coagulation of blood, even in large wounds, through a very simple process: It physically adsorbs the liquid from blood, thereby concentrating the clotting factors and encouraging rapid clotting to stop the bleeding.

QuikClot brand hemostatic agent is different from similar products in that it is chemically inert, and therefore is safe to leave in or on the wound until the patient receives medical treatment. Furthermore, since it contains nothing biological or botanical, there is little or no danger of an allergic reaction.

I don't doubt you were told what you said. And maybe the military has a different forumulation. But cauterize? Doubt it. More likely, anything that will absorb liquid from the blood like that will do bad things to any part of the body that's "wet" (like, inside the lungs). Thus the warning not to breathe it.

Edit:

Here's an article that gives some more information, including:
Potential users are cautioned that QuikClot can cause minor burns and should be applied only after a pressure dressing or tourniquet has failed to stop the flow of blood, she said.

Edit 2:
Aha! Zeolite adsorption is an exothermic reaction (generates heat). From this abstract:
Background: Techniques for better hemorrhage control after injury could change outcome. We have previously shown that a zeolite mineral hemostatic agent (ZH) can control aggressive bleeding through adsorption of water, which is an exothermic process. Increasing the residual moisture content (RM) of ZH can theoretically decrease heat generation, but its effect on the hemostatic properties is unknown. We tested ZH with increasing RM against controls and other hemostatic agents in a swine model of battlefield injury.

So, yeah. Using it will generate heat. Apparently enough for minor burns. But the heat is a side effect... it's not how the blood is actually stopped.

(I love google. I really, really do.)

hm, cauterization seems brutal to me either but I´ll give a damn on it whether it´ll safe my life ...

Actcel ... hm, I would like to know what "our" professionals (Polak, it´s your turn !) think about it!

Under http://www.actcel.com/files/ProductComparisonsEMSER.pdf you´ll finde an interesting comparison chart ...

I just checked out the website, interesting product. Seems like it would be very effective for small wounds, but except for patients who are very young, old, have difficulty healing, or are hemopheliacs, it seems like an unnecessary luxury for such use. For larger, high volume and pressure bleeding, I doubt a simple gel would be effective. Under the 'how actel works' section, they illustrate several uses of the product, but all are very minor wounds with small amounts of capillary or venous bleeding. The fact that they don't show it used in any major injuries seems to imply that it is not meant for that purpose, despite the fact that it describes usage by ems, fire, and hospitals, and says it can be used for 'arterial bleeds'.

Besides, at $6 per 2x2 and $12 per 4x4, and considering that several would be needed for larger wounds, I'd rather spend my money on the smaller quickclot packages, at $14 appiece(sold by the pair). I would definitely be interested in buying some if it were more affordable, and if I'm convinced it can handle heavier bleeding, then I might consider it as a safer alternative to quick clot for medium wounds. In the meaintime, I plan on requesting the free sample.

P.S. - The product comparison sheet is extremely misleading, desceptive, and innaccurate. For example, it claims that their product requires only one step, while some others require three. In fact, according to their own website, there are 4 steps. It also claims that no additional bandage is necessary, yet again, this is contradicted by their own website. Also, saying that anaphylaxis is a medical risk for the other products is technically true, but misleading and exagerated. And thier claim that their product is risk free is highly questionable. For example, the glucose may pose a hazard to diabetics or other patients who must closely regulate blood sugar. And if used say, at the carotid artery, couldn't a peice of the gauze cause a stroke before fully disintegrating, either on its own or with an attached clot?

I have some that I have placed into my numerous personal FAKs; however, I have yet to use it as the standard direct pressure, pressure bandage and elevation have been adequate to date.

I have serious doubts that any EMS jurisdiction in the US has it deployed into routine (accepted) use to date. Most EMS systems will rely upon the basics, both for liability issues as well as cost. I doubt, that here in Maryland it would ever become Standard of Care use.

Pete

Groo, thanks for the REAL info...I think our leadership was aiming that particular training module to those types that might in a drunken stupor bet each other how much Quik Clot each other could eat or some such...