I'm a Wilderness First Responder and in the latest curriculum the Sawyer extractor is no longer recommended for snake bite; recent research studies showed that it had no positive effect, could damage tissues, and delayed getting to the best course of action - which is immediate evacuation for treatment. (For insect stings, still OK to use, though not always effective.)
There's a "wrap" treatment for elapid bites (coral snakes and all kinds of tropical snakes not found here) that shows some promise - but evacuation with elevation of the bitten limb if possible is still the way to go for those and for all pit viper bites.
(Oh - and definitely no "cut and suck" treatments - those have been out for years as they cause damage, expose the wound to further chance of infection, and get very little venom out!)
+1 to what bmisf is saying. I took a Wilderness First Aid course last year. They advised us that any suction was ineffectual and could actually make things worse. There really wasn't much that one could do in the field for a snake bite victim, just clean the wound, cover the wound with a sterile dressing, keep the victim as calm as possible, and evacuate ASAP. Antivenom is really the only effective means of treatment, which is not especially good for those of us who like to wander "off the beaten track."
Perhaps yet another really good reason to carry a PLB?It's a valid point that the test cited has some flaws, but I wonder if that particular study is what the "no suction" advice is based on. Is that the only study out there? Did that study result in the "no suction" recommendation? I'm not saying the study isn't relevant, but it's a least worth asking what other factors were included in the "no suction" recommendation.
Previous Topic
Index
