Originally Posted By: JerryFountain
Originally Posted By: hikermor
I am a Quik-Clot skeptic, mostly because I have treated, or been around, a lot of trauma where direct pressure worked very well. These were non-battlefield situations, where obviously the character of the trauma would be different. Most of what I have seen involved falls and fractures, where a lot of splinting was involved.

Although my experience mostly mimic's yours, I have seen a time or two where the Quick-Clot would have been VERY useful. The information I have seen recommends direct pressure first, then if that is not enough, use the Quick-Clot. That is how I would expect to use it except in the case of a major trama that I clearly cannot stop (or without help could not stop).



I put my faith in direct pressure, I have a couple problems with Quick Clot - first, I don't know how to apply it, and simply dumping QC into a wound to stop bleeding seems to me to create more issues down the line than I care to inflict. I hear stories of surgeons having to deal with Quick-Clot, and often not in a pleasant way. Second, I like the idea of HemCon bandages, a pressure or other bandage that has celox or other blood coagulation products embedded in it - just wrap on a HemCon, keep pressure, and bleeding stops. The advantage there is you remove a bandage later during treatment, you remove the Quick-Clot. The disadvantage is price, they appear to be very expensive. Plus the fact that direct pressure has always worked for me, though I have never encountered a battlefield-type wound. QC is probably a great product in the right hands. I'm betting I don't need it in my particular kit though.