QuikClot® Combat Gauze® Use by Ground Forces in Afghanistan The Prehospital Trauma Registry Experience

• Published in: Journal of special operations medicine Vol. 17; no. 2; p. 101
• Main Authors: Schauer, Steven G, April, Michael D, Naylor, Jason F, Fisher, Andrew D, Cunningham, Cord W, Ryan, Kathy L, Thomas, Krista C, Brillhart, Daniel B, Fernandez, Jessie Renee D, Antonacci, Mark A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 2017
• Subjects: Afghan Campaign 2001; Bandages; Emergency Medical Services; Explosions; Hemorrhage - therapy; Hemostatics - therapeutic use; Humans; Military Medicine; Registries; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; War-Related Injuries - therapy; Wounds and Injuries - therapy; Wounds, Gunshot - therapy; Wounds, Penetrating - therapy
• ISSN: 1553-9768
• DOI: 10.55460/MJDI-7NPA

QuikClot® Combat Gauze® (QCCG) was fielded in 2008 to replace previous generations of hemostatic products. To the best of our knowledge, despite nearly a decade of use, there are no published data on use among US combatant forces. We describe the use of QCCG by ground forces in Afghanistan and compare patients who received QCCG compared with the remaining population in the database who did not receive QCCG.
Data were obtained from the Prehospital Trauma Registry (PHTR). Joint Trauma System personnel linked patients to the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR) for outcome data, when available, upon reaching a fixed facility.
Of the 705 patients within the entire PHTR, 118 (16.7%) had documented use of QCCG. Most patients (69.5%) were Afghan; all were male. Lower extremities accounted for the most common site of application (39.7%). Hemorrhage control occurred in 88.3% of encounters with hemorrhage control status documented. Patients receiving QCCG generally had higher rates of concomitant interventions. Of the 705 patients, 190 were linkable to the DODTR for outcome data; 25 of the 28 (89.3%) in the QCCG group were discharged alive compared with 153 of the 162 (94.4%) in the non-QCCG group (ρ = .300).
QCCG appears to have common use on the battlefield as a concomitant intervention for obtaining hemorrhage control. Patients receiving QCCG had higher rates of gunshot wounds compared with the baseline population and were generally sicker. Hemorrhage control success was like that reported in other military and civilian settings.