Abstract:Background: Previous research has shown that external hemorrhage from proximal leg amputations and junctional sites represents 19.2% of potentially survivable lethal hemorrhage. A recent effort to address this problem has resulted in the development of various junctional tourniquets. This study assessed and compared two Tactical Combat Casualty Care Committee-approved junctional tourniquets, the Combat Ready Clamp (CRoC) and the Junctional Emergency Treatment Tool (JETT), to contribute to their future development and to better inform on the decisions for device selection by military units. Aims of the study also were to provide concrete feedback and suggestions on how to effectively apply the devices. Methods: Via a specific questionnaire, 75 international attendees of the International Special Training Centre Medical Branch Special Operations Forces Advanced Medical First Responder course evaluated the CRoC and the JETT on different parameters. Both devices were tested objectively through timed applications aimed at stopping unilateral lower-extremity distal pulse on 33 of these 75 students, verified by palpation by Medical Branch instructors. Subjective and objective data were examined for mutual correlation. Results: Users ranked the JETT higher than the CRoC on all parameters, including effectiveness on the battlefield (ρ < .001), ease of use (ρ < .039), speed of application (ρ < .001), and not slipping in use (ρ < .001), although the difference on other parameters such as effectiveness in hemorrhage control was not statistically significant. Considering all parameters together, the JETT was evaluated as a better device than the CRoC (ρ < .001). The application time measurement suggested that the JETT was applied faster (by approximately 15 seconds on average; ρ < .001). The fastest CRoC and JETT applications were 37 and 29 seconds, respectively. The JETT was not easier to use or more effective than the CRoC; there was a 9% failure rate of the JETT occluding a unilateral common femoral artery. The JETT's efficacy in occluding a unilateral common femoral artery can be compromised if the device's pelvic binder is not sufficiently tightened prior to threading the T-handled pad. The CRoC's application time can be drastically reduced if the device is kept assembled and firm pressure is immediately asserted upon placement on the intended location through the vertical arm, then threading the device. Both devices were applied safely; no adverse effects were reported during or after application. Conclusion: Even though the JETT might be preferred by military medical providers, the CRoC still has merits. As both devices proved to occlude the arterial flow in no less than 54 seconds on average, they could be used to supplement direct pressure and wound packing, the latter two still being considered the immediate actions for inguinal bleeding control. Considering that the CRoC and the JETT can be applied in as little as 37 and 29 seconds, respectively, users should be effectively trained and entirely proficient on either device to justify their election as the primary countermeasure to hemorrhage not amenable to regular tourniquets.

EuroTrauma, delays in access to bleeding control. A comparison between a conventional and a hybrid trauma center, both European military trauma centers

The trauma patient in hemorrhagic shock: how is the C-priority addressed between emergency and ICU admission?

International benchmarking of tertiary trauma centers: productivity and throughput approach

Comparing outcomes in patients with exsanguinating injuries: an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST), multicenter, international trial evaluating prioritization of circulation over intubation (CAB over ABC)

Some New Progress in the Treatment of Severe Trauma

Evaluation and Testing of Junctional Tourniquets by Special Operation Forces Personnel: A Comparison of the Combat Ready Clamp and the Junctional Emergency Treatment Tool

[Surgical management of severe noncompressible torso and organ hemorrhages]

[Care Management for Polytrauma Patients in a Level-1 Trauma Centre]

SP9.1.7 Emergency Laparotomy for Trauma in the United Kingdom and Ireland: a Prospective Multicentre Study

Addressing Differences in Knowledge and Experience in Trauma Care Capabilities Among an International Team of Military Medical Care Providers in a Deployed Setting

Transforming research to improve therapies for trauma in the twenty-first century

The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fourth edition

Multicenter Analysis Of Massive Transfusion Practices Demonstrates Variabilities Across Trauma Centers In The Southwestern Surgical Congress

Review article: Pre-hospital trauma guidelines and access to lifesaving interventions in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand

Viscoelastic haemostatic assay augmented protocols for major trauma haemorrhage (ITACTIC): a randomized, controlled trial

Impact of antithrombotic therapy on acute and delayed intracranial haemorrhage and evaluation of the need of short-term hospitalisation based on CT findings after mild traumatic brain injury: experience from an oral and maxillofacial surgery unit

Emergency Blood Transfusion for Trauma and Perioperative Resuscitation: Standard of Care

A comparative effectiveness trial of an information technology enhanced peer-integrated collaborative care intervention versus enhanced usual care for US trauma care systems: Clinical study protocol

Early identification of patients requiring massive transfusion, embolization, or hemostatic surgery for traumatic hemorrhage: a systematic review protocol

Prehospital Application of Hemostatic Agents in Iraq and Afghanistan

The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: sixth edition