INVENTION: Gunshot Wound Sealed within 15 seconds

[Flatline]

How about bringing something to this discussion other than sarcasm?

I bring unbiased experience. People can say that they don't care what the surgeon thinks if they get there alive, but if 80% of your patients die on the table instead of 25% due to the increased time taken in surgery (pulling out 92 pellets is going to take a long time, and if you have to explore or take xrays because you don't really know how many pellets there are it will take even longer), but you only increase the number of causalities that make it to the OR by 10% is it worth it (obviously these stats are made up, but without studies nobody will know what they really are)? Pressure dressings or other traditional methods not only stop blood from exiting the body, but will prevent third spacing of the blood into organ cavities, can this product work as well or does it only stop blood from exiting the wound tract? I have seen many triple As die from hemorrhagic shock with all of the blood being third spaced in the peritoneal cavity.

People want to jump on a bandwagon because something is new and exciting. This could potentially be a good product, but it could also be crap. I would love for this to be great, but for the reasons above I have my doubts. All medical professionals should recognize this, and not advocate for something until there is efficacy (as proven by multiple third party studies). I see the same thing in the fire service, some company will try to peddle their new product without any proof that it works any better than what we already have. They usually have some flashy video of them putting out a mobile home fire is 30 seconds on their website, but struggle to show it works any better when we ask them to do it at our station. The company is there to make money.

I would love a tool that can increase survivability be it this product or any other, but there needs to be proof.

Why are you so defensive when someone has doubts about an unproven product?

[ChunkyMonkey]

I bring unbiased experience. People can say that they don't care what the surgeon thinks if they get there alive, but if 80% of your patients die on the table instead of 25% due to the increased time taken in surgery (pulling out 92 pellets is going to take a long time, and if you have to explore or take xrays because you don't really know how many pellets there are it will take even longer), but you only increase the number of causalities that make it to the OR by 10% is it worth it (obviously these stats are made up, but without studies nobody will know what they really are)? Pressure dressings or other traditional methods not only stop blood from exiting the body, but will prevent third spacing of the blood into organ cavities, can this product work as well or does it only stop blood from exiting the wound tract? I have seen many triple As die from hemorrhagic shock with all of the blood being third spaced in the peritoneal cavity.

People want to jump on a bandwagon because something is new and exciting. This could potentially be a good product, but it could also be crap. I would love for this to be great, but for the reasons above I have my doubts. All medical professionals should recognize this, and not advocate for something until there is efficacy (as proven by multiple third party studies). I see the same thing in the fire service, some company will try to peddle their new product without any proof that it works any better than what we already have. They usually have some flashy video of them putting out a mobile home fire is 30 seconds on their website, but struggle to show it works any better when we ask them to do it at our station. The company is there to make money.

I would love a tool that can increase survivability be it this product or any other, but there needs to be proof.

Why are you so defensive when someone has doubts about an unproven product?

Its one thing to show skeptism. Another just to be a smartass.

Like mentioned above, the product is being or will be tested. Most of the above posters are folks who have been in the industry, medic, trainer and even on the battlefield. Their words mean so much more than yours since I dont know you personally.

Unless you are a surgeon, I dont think you can speak beyond just your own personal opinion.

[Flatline]

Its one thing to show skeptism. Another just to be a smartass.

Like mentioned above, the product is being or will be tested. Most of the above posters are folks who have been in the industry, medic, trainer and even on the battlefield. Their words mean so much more than yours since I dont know you personally.

Unless you are a surgeon, I dont think you can speak beyond just your own personal opinion.

How about a Paramedic/RN who also has a BS in biology, though not a surgeon I feel that my experience might be worth something. My "smartass" comment was only in response to what people said after my first post, who didn't find any value in an opinion that did not support the product.

[Mick-Boy]

Who the hell still uses quick clot powder (granules)? I haven't seen any of that stuff since Iraq in '07 or so.

Like I said back in Feb. I'd be very interested in seeing 3rd party testing. I'm going to try and get our TCCC guys to get their hands on some of this for our next pig lab too. The proof is usually in the pudding, not the press releases and advertising.

[cmailliard]

Who the hell still uses quick clot powder (granules)? I haven't seen any of that stuff since Iraq in '07 or so.

Like I said back in Feb. I'd be very interested in seeing 3rd party testing. I'm going to try and get our TCCC guys to get their hands on some of this for our next pig lab too. The proof is usually in the pudding, not the press releases and advertising.

I'm still in this boat as well. To me nothing is good until it has solid third party testing. Marketing, advertising and the FDA approval are one thing but until USAISR gets their hands on it and tests it against Combat Gauze I will remain cautiously optimistic. Other than company testing I have not seen any quantitative or qualitative research on this product. I am not against this product at all I am just not convinced yet.

Trauma Surgeons can pound sand, the patient is alive on your table, not dead in a ditch. I told a trauma doc at a local Level 1 the same thing about 8 years ago.

[cofi]

Who the hell still uses quick clot powder (granules)? I haven't seen any of that stuff since Iraq in '07 or so.

Like I said back in Feb. I'd be very interested in seeing 3rd party testing. I'm going to try and get our TCCC guys to get their hands on some of this for our next pig lab too. The proof is usually in the pudding, not the press releases and advertising.

Your so lucky I would love to do live tissue training

[Flatline]

Unproven you say, so you know exactly how this products been fielded and tested? Apparently you don't even know how the CoTCCC is structured, much less the FDA process that the product has been subjected to. I don't own stock, don't care beyond wanting to see the good guys get the best product possible be they mil, civ or LE.

Having met the inventor, seen the lab testing video and hearing some of the field trials from downrange, I'd say you weren't offering an unbiased opinion, so much as an uninformed opinion.

I want everybody to have a good product, especially me. Until its proven I can't advocate for something being the "best product." If they don't publish it, then I don't have access. If you would like to share this information I would love to look at it. Most companies publish their studies, I could not find anything other than new stories announcing this company presenting the product. All I see is a bunch of hype with nothing backing it with makes me instantly suspicious.

[Mick-Boy]

The blood leaking into the space in between the organs that Flatline mentioned is a huge issue with controlling bleeds in the pelvic or shoulder girdles. I've seen guys stuff hundreds of 4x4s into a pig and not stop the bleeding (almost two of these because they weren't on the bleed. Maybe little sponges will work better than z-folded combat gauze (which is the standard right now). But it takes serious third party testing to validate that. Manufacturers claims don't mean much in most cases. They're in the business of making money. Of course they claim their product is the tops.

[stodg73]

Any new information on this product?

[HoneyBadger]

Thread bump! This product received FDA approval for civilian mass-marketing in December 2015. Sweet!

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsro.../ucm475810.htm