Downloaded from emj.bmj.com on September 7, 2013 - Published by group.bmj.com
Review
Haemostatic dressings in prehospital care
Adam Hewitt Smith,1 Colville Laird,2 Keith Porter,3 Mark Bloch4
▸ Additional supplementary
files are published online only.
To view these files please visit
the journal online (http://dx.doi.
org/10.1136/emermed-2012201581).
1
Department of Anaesthetics,
Lister Hospital , Stevenage,
Hertfordshire, UK
2
Department of Education,
BASICS Scotland, Aberuthven,
Scotland
3
Department of Trauma &
Orthopaedics, Queen Elizabeth
Medical Centre, University
Hospitals Birmingham NHS
Foundation Trust, Queen
Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham,
UK
4
Department of Anaesthetics,
Aberdeen Royal Infirmary &
Royal Aberdeen Children’s
Hospital, University of
Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland
Correspondence to
Dr Adam Hewitt Smith,
Department of Anaesthetics,
Lister Hospital, Coreys Mill
Lane, Stevenage, Hertfordshire
SG1 4AB, UK;
adamhewittsmith@gmail.com
Accepted 22 October 2012
Published Online First
17 November 2012
ABSTRACT
Massive haemorrhage still accounts for up to 40% of
mortality after traumatic injury. The importance of limiting
blood loss after injury in order to prevent its associated
complications has led to rapid advances in the
development of dressings for haemostatic control. Driven
by recent military conflicts, there is increasing evidence
to support their role in the civilian prehospital care
environment. This review aims to summarise the key
characteristics of the haemostatic dressings currently
available on the market and provide an educational
review of the published literature that supports their use.
Medline and Embase were searched from start to
January 2012. Other sources included both manufacturer
and military publications. Agents not designed for use in
prehospital care or that have been removed from the
market due to significant safety concerns were excluded.
The dressings reviewed have differing mechanisms of
action. Mineral based dressings are potent activators of
the intrinsic clotting cascade resulting in clot formation.
Chitosan based dressings achieve haemostasis by
adhering to damaged tissues and creating a physical
barrier to further bleeding. Acetylated glucosamine
dressings work via a combination of platelet and clotting
cascade activation, agglutination of red blood cells and
local vasoconstriction. Anecdotal reports strongly support
the use of haemostatic dressings when bleeding cannot
be controlled using pressure dressings alone; however,
current research focuses on studies conducted using
animal models. There is a paucity of published clinical
literature that provides an evidence base for the use of
one type of haemostatic dressing over another in
humans.
INTRODUCTION
After traumatic injury, haemorrhage adversely
affects patient outcomes and is the commonest
cause of preventable death in this setting.
Responsible for 30%–40% of trauma mortality,
almost a half of these deaths will occur in the prehospital period.1 In addition to contributing directly to early mortality, hypotension caused by
blood loss is a major factor in the development of
secondary brain injury 2 and bleeding exacerbates
the acute coagulopathy that can occur as a
primary response to trauma.3 Massive haemorrhage leads to inadequate tissue perfusion causing
cell hypoxia and anaerobic respiration. The resultant metabolic acidosis impairs clotting and
roughly a third of all trauma patients with bleeding will be coagulopathic on admission to hospital.4 Hypothermia also rapidly develops in
haemorrhaging patients, especially those who are
exposed for examination or who have decreased
motor activity due to unconsciousness or sedation.
Core body temperatures below 34°C lead to
slowing of clotting enzyme activity and decreased
784
platelet function5 and survival of patients with
core temperatures below 32°C is very rare without
surgical intervention. These three factors, acidosis,
coagulopathy and hypothermia, together form a
lethal triad that is well known for its major role in
trauma morbidity and mortality.3 Although there
is little published literature describing the incidence of life threatening haemorrhage in the UK
civilian population, it is recognised by The
National Confidential Enquiry into Patient
Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) that effective and
timely haemorrhage control may be the single
most important step in the emergency management of the severely injured patient.6 In the military, acute haemorrhage is responsible for up to
80% of the mortality in patients with potentially
survivable injuries.7 Recent advances have been
made in the fields of resuscitation, massive transfusion and coagulation management; however, preventing blood loss before arrival at hospital could
save more lives than any other intervention.8
Compressible haemorrhage can normally be
stopped using constant, direct manual pressure;
however, this prevents the care provider from
continuing their management and can slow the
delivery of the patient to definitive care. The prehospital application of tourniquets is associated
with increased survival9 but many wounds are
unsuitable for their use. Junctional zones, such as
the neck, axilla and groin, contain large vascular
structures and present a particular problem for
haemorrhage control.10 Using gauze bandages to
compress a bleeding wound has been the mainstay
of haemorrhage control for many centuries. In the
21st century, there has been growing interest in
field dressings that employ additional haemostatic
mechanisms and are therefore more effective than
gauze at preventing blood loss. Military campaigns
in Iraq and Afghanistan have focused research
efforts to develop products that act as an adjuvant
to the body’s normal blood clotting capacity.
These novel dressings decrease prehospital blood
loss, help to prevent the development of the lethal
triad and decrease associated mortality. The
purpose of this educational review is to summarise
the literature on the main haemostatic agents that
are currently available on the market for use in the
prehospital environment.
METHODS
Electronic literature searches were undertaken
using Medline and Embase (Ovid). To capture articles available online prior to publication, searches
were repeated using PubMed, excluding Medline
articles. The initial search for English language
articles relating to haemostatic dressings included
alternative spellings (such as haem or hem) and
both combat and battlefield dressings. Article
Emerg Med J 2013;30:784–789. doi:10.1136/emermed-2012-201581
Downloaded from emj.bmj.com on September 7, 2013 - Published by group.bmj.com
Review
abstracts were filtered for dressings that are used in prehospital
care and that are currently available on the market. Agents
found to be ineffective in preclinical traumatic haemorrhage
models were excluded.11–14 Products that have already been
withdrawn from the market after safety concerns, for example
WoundStat,8 15 and the first generation QuikClot (QC) granules16–18 have also been excluded from this article.
The following agents are included: QuikClot Advanced
Clotting Sponge + (ACS+), QuikClot Combat Gauze (QCG),
QuikClot Combat Gauze XL (QCX), HemCon ChitoFlex
(HCF), HemCon ChitoGauze (HCG), Celox Gauze (CEL) and
modified Rapid Deployment Haemostat (mRDH). Table 1 provides a comparison of their main characteristics and table 2
summarises the most recent published literature for each
dressing.
ZEOLITE BASED DRESSINGS
QC agents have been used by military and civilian emergency
medical services in the treatment of haemorrhage after trauma
for over 10 years. The first and second generation products were
based on a naturally occurring material called zeolite. These
dry mineral granules rapidly absorbed the water in blood in an
exothermic reaction, concentrating cells and clotting factors
and leading to haemostasis. Repeated concerns were raised
regarding the exothermic nature of this haemostatic process.
Tissue surface temperatures after application of the agent
exceeded 95°C and led to full and partial thickness cutaneous
burns16 and there were several examples of patients receiving
secondary injuries.17 18 Despite being an effective haemostatic
agent with a reported efficacy of 92% in 103 human cases,19 a
second generation dressing was developed to address these
safety concerns.
QuikClot ACS+
Although still zeolite material, the ACS+ was modified to yield
a reduced exothermic reaction in contact with liquid20 and packaged in a loose mesh bag to facilitate easy application and
removal. ACS+ has been tested in five published studies since
2009.12 13 21–23 The first, using a swine 6 mm arteriotomy
model, was stopped after six consecutive failures to achieve
haemostasis.21 In two comparison studies of 10 different
haemostatic dressings, in both arterial puncture and transection
swine models, ACS+ performed better than standard gauze in
controlling bleeding and improving survival.12 13 In a further
model with standardised injury to both femoral artery and vein,
although overall survival and blood loss for ACS+ was significantly improved in comparison with an Army Field Dressing,
three other haemostatic agents outperformed ACS+.22 The
most recent published study using a model of complete transection of both femoral artery and vein demonstrated equal survival
rates and similar blood loss when comparing standard gauze
Table 1
dressing and ACS+.23 The only published case of ACS+ being
used in a patient describes a high velocity firearm injury leading
to an acetabular and femoral neck fracture. The dressing failed
to stop the haemorrhage, as it was unable to be applied directly
to the source of the bleeding.19
KAOLIN BASED DRESSINGS
A third generation of dressings manufactured by QC use a different aluminium silicate mineral called kaolin. Kaolin is a
potent activator of the intrinsic clotting pathway accelerating
clot formation within a wound.
QuikClot Combat Gauze
Early testing by both the US Army’s Institute of Surgical
Research24 and the US Navy Medical Research Centre12 13 produced promising results (with either a prototype dressing called
X-Sponge or QCG itself ). Shortly after this, the US Committee
on Tactical Combat Casualty Care voted to recommend QCG
as the first line treatment for life-threatening haemorrhage not
amenable to tourniquet placement. This replaced the QC
zeolite granules and HemCon dressing that had previously been
used. As a pro-coagulant rather than adhesive dressing, haemostasis is achieved when a clot is formed within and around the
QCG. This takes time to achieve and can result in greater blood
loss than other agents.25 26 As a coagulopathy will eventually
develop in patients who are exsanguinating3 and QCG is
dependent on a functioning clotting cascade to achieve haemostasis, this scenario may limit its effectiveness although there
have been no published case reports describing this. In a review
of 14 uses of QCG by the Israel Defence Force in 2009 in the
Gaza Strip, a success rate of 79% was reported with failures
attributed only to severe soft tissue and vascular injuries.27 The
US Naval Medical Research Unit (NMRU) has however
recently conducted a direct comparison of the most promising
haemostatic gauzes with QCG, their current gold standard.
When measuring time to initial haemostasis, total haemostasis
time, blood loss, fluid requirements during resuscitation and
overall survival, QCG was outperformed by three other dressings (QCX, CEL and HCG).28
QuikClot Combat Gauze XL
QCX has been produced after some wounds were found to
require two packs of the original QCG. It is 400 wide and folded
in two to produce a two-ply gauze (in comparison with QCG
that is 300 wide and single-ply only). In the same NMRU study,
QCX excelled in two specific areas, immediate haemostasis and
reduced total blood loss. Of particular note, however, was that
the mass of QCX was nearly twice that of QCG. The observed
performance differences may therefore have been due to the
total mass of gauze applied rather than the greater quantities
of active ingredients.28
Haemostatic agents
QuikClot Advanced Clotting Sponge+
QuikClot Combat Gauze
QuikClot Combat Gauze XL
HemCon ChitoFlex
HemCon ChitoGauze
Celox Gauze
Modified rapid deployment haemostat
Manufacturer
Active ingredient
Dressing type
Dressing size
Cost
Z-Medica
Z-Medica
Z-Medica
HemCon Medical Technologies Inc
HemCon Medical Technologies Inc
MedTrade Products
Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc
Modified zeolite
Kaolin
Kaolin
Chitosan
Chitosan
Chitosan
Poly-N-acetyl glucosamine
Granules in mesh bag
Z-fold gauze
Z-fold gauze
Gauze roll
Z-fold gauze
Gauze roll
10 cm ×10 cm dressing
3.5 oz sponge
7.5 cm×3.7 m
10 cm×3.7 m
7.5×71 cm
7.5 cm×3.7 m
7.6 cm×3.0 m
10 cm×10 cm
£40
£35
£65*
£193
£35
£44
£658*
*Price converted from USA dollars into GB pounds
Emerg Med J 2013;30:784–789. doi:10.1136/emermed-2012-201581
785
Downloaded from emj.bmj.com on September 7, 2013 - Published by group.bmj.com
Review
Table 2
Summary of recent studies
Experimental
or clinical
Additional
agents
compared
Side effects/Safety
concerns
Agent
Study
QuikClot
Advanced Clotting
Sponge+ (ACS+)
Devlin
et al23
Clay et al22
Experimental
SD, HCF, CEL
Experimental
Kheirabadi
et al21
Arnaud
et al12 13
Experimental
SD, HC, WS,
CX
HC, WS, CX
Experimental
SD, WS, CX,
QCG, HCF, HC
Rall28
Experimental
QCX, CEL,
HCG
Schwartz
et al25
Littlejohn
et al26
Experimental
HCG
Experimental
SD, WS, HCF,
CX
Ran et al27
Clinical
Kheirabadi
et al39
Experimental
SD, WS
Arnaud
et al12 13
Experimental
SD, WS, CX,
ACS+, HCF,
HC
QuikClot Combat
Gauze XL (QCX)
Rall28
Experimental
QCX, CEL,
HCG
HemCon ChitoFlex
(HCF)
Devlin
et al23
Experimental
SD, ACS+,
CEL
Littlejohn
et al26
Experimental
SD, WS, QCG,
CX
Rall et al28
Experimental
QCG, QCX,
CEL
Schwartz
et al25
Xie et al31
Experimental
QCG
Experimental
QCG
Rall28
Experimental
QCG, QCX,
HCG
Watters
et al35
Experimental
SD, QCG
Milner
et al34
King37
Experimental
Omni-Stat
▸ Outperformed QCG throughout
▸ No significant difference in end points of initial haemostasis, blood loss
and survival compared with QCX and CEL
▸ Less total blood loss and quicker time to haemostasis than QCG
although not statistically significant
▸ Less total blood loss and quicker time to haemostasis than QCG
although not statistically significant
▸ Significantly less blood shed at 10 min compared with QCG
▸ Outperformed other dressings with 90% survival
▸ Second longest wound packing time
▸ No statistical difference in performance between CEL and SD although
manufacturer’s recommendations not followed in this model and no
compression used after dressing applied to wound
▸ Achieved haemostasis in a model of moderate systemic heparinisation
Clinical
mRDH
▸ Effective haemostat for controlling bleeding within a hospital setting
King et al38
Clinical
mRDH
▸ Successful haemostasis in 82% of cases in a variety of injury types
including both trauma and surgical causes
QuikClot Combat
Gauze (QCG)
HemCon
ChitoGauze(HCG)
Celox Gauze (CEL)
*
Modified rapid
deployment
haemostat
(mRDH)
Key findings
▸ No significant difference between dressings or standard gauze for blood
loss, rebleeding or survival
▸ All haemostatic dressings significantly superior to standard field dressing
▸ ACS+ removed more quickly and easily due to packaging in bag
▸ Treatment with ACS+ failed to produce haemostasis in six consecutive
experiments therefore removed from testing
▸ ACS+ in top four best performing dressings (in addition to CX and
HCG) as determined by survival, lower blood loss and rebleeding
▸ This finding was replicated in both transection and puncture study
models
▸ QCG outperformed by three other dressings. Significant difference in
time to initial haemostasis (compared with QCX) and blood loss (compared
with QCX and CEL)
▸ Greater total blood loss and longer time to initial haemostasis in QCG
group compared with HCG (not significant)
▸ QCG did not outperform other agents in this study
▸ Proper wound packing and pressure reported to be as important as use
of haemostatic agent
▸ Success rate of 79% in use during 14 cases (13 were gunshot or blast).
Failures attributed to severe soft tissue and vascular injury
▸ Safety evaluation of new haemostatic agents QCG and WS
▸ QCG comparative with normal gauze with no safety concerns
▸ Significant safety concerns for WS
▸ QCG in top four best performing dressings (in addition to CX and ACS+)
as determined by survival, lower blood loss and rebleeding
▸ This finding was replicated in both transection and puncture study
models
▸ QCX had significantly better rate of immediate haemostasis and
reduced total blood loss compared with QCG. This may however have been
secondary to the larger dressing size
▸ HCF performed equally well in mitigating blood loss and promoting
survival in comparison with other dressings
▸ No agents were superior to SD in this model of limited access
▸ Rebleeding in HCF group occurred at twice rate of others but no
statistically significant difference in any end points between groups
▸ If HCF not unrolled completely prior to insertion, it became ‘glued’
together on contact with blood
ACS+ was difficult to
place in small incision
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Large dressing took on
average 15 s longer to
pack wound
Nil
HCF had to be folded
multiple times to be
made small enough to
treat limited access
wound
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Rebleeding may occur on
dressing removal
*Many more studies exist that test Celox Granules, and only those testing Celox Gauze have been included here.
CX, Celox granules, HC, HemCon Dressing, QCG, QuikClot Combat Gauze; SD, standard gauze/dressing; WS, WoundStat.
CHITOSAN BASED DRESSINGS
Chitosan is a naturally occurring biodegradable polysaccharide
derived from shellfish such as shrimp. When incorporated into
a dressing, it is able to achieve haemostasis by attracting red
blood cells into the bandage creating an adherent seal over the
786
wound. In 2002, a chitosan bandage called HemCon was introduced into the military for use in the treatment of external
haemorrhage after being found effective in reducing blood loss
and improving survival in a model of severe venous haemorrhage and hepatic injury in swine.29 To work effectively, the
Emerg Med J 2013;30:784–789. doi:10.1136/emermed-2012-201581
Downloaded from emj.bmj.com on September 7, 2013 - Published by group.bmj.com
Review
dressing has to be placed directly onto the bleeding wound in
order to allow adhesion. A relatively stiff plastic backing
restricted its use in many wound types and led to the development of more flexible alternatives.
ChitoFlex
Improved products are now available that are thinner and
conform more easily to wounds. Developed in 2006, HCF is a
dual sided chitosan roll that was shown to outperform both
the original HemCon bandage and chitosan granules in achieving haemostasis in a lethal groin injury model.30 Despite the
new dressing being more flexible, additional studies have
shown no significant superiority in the efficacy of HCF compared with alternative dressings.12 13 23 26
ChitoGauze
The HCG dressing is a non-woven medical gauze coated with a
uniform layer of chitosan. Relatively new, it is manufactured
by HemCon Medical Technologies Inc. and stops bleeding by
controlling the rate of blood flow through the dressing. The
chitosan coating also helps to adhere the gauze to the wound
site creating a physical barrier to continued bleeding. Two
studies using an arterial haemorrhage swine model have compared HCG with QCG. The sample sizes were too small to
demonstrate statistically significant differences between the
two; however in the first, the mean time to haemostasis was
12 min in the HCG group compared with 38 min in the QCG
group.31 This was replicated in a second study with 13 and
32 min to achieve haemostasis, respectively.25 In both studies,
total blood loss in the HCG group was lower than the QCG
group.25 31 The NMRU study used HCG as one of its test
agents. HCG required the smallest volume of fluids for resuscitation, outperformed QCG on almost all criteria and showed
no significant difference in haemostasis or blood loss to GCX or
CEL.28
Celox Gauze
Celox has been available for the treatment of emergency bleeding since 2006. Available in both a granular and bandage form,
its active ingredient is the natural polymer chitosan. It works
independently of the body’s clotting mechanism, bonding to
the surface of red blood cells to produce a gel like plug or clot.
In the comparison by Arnaud et al of 10 different haemostatic
dressings using both a groin transection and groin puncture
model, Celox granules were rated among the four highest performing dressings.12 13 It has also been used successfully in the
clinical setting. A series of cases describes the use of Celox granules in 21 military patients with gunshot wounds. In 18, clotting occurred in less than a minute. Three required further
applications of Celox granules to control severe arterial bleeding
but no failures were described.32 In its granular form, Celox is a
light powder and is said to be more difficult to apply in the
field, especially in windy or low-visibility conditions.8 It is also
available, however, in a syringe-like applicator that is designed
to deliver the agent directly to the deepest part of a small penetrating wound.
Celox granules have also been bonded to the surface of a
gauze roll. This alternative CEL dressing is used by the UK
military as its haemostatic agent of choice. Four published
studies have compared CEL with alternative agents. The first
tested CEL against HemCon and QC granules in a mixed
venous and arterial haemorrhage model. CEL reduced rebleeding
to 0% and improved survival to 100% outperforming the other
agents.33 The second used a major hepatic injury model in
Emerg Med J 2013;30:784–789. doi:10.1136/emermed-2012-201581
heparinised swine. In the CEL group, haemostasis was achieved
in five of six applications after 5 min pressure and in the sixth
after a further 2 min of pressure. This was despite the addition
of a significant amount of heparin to the model to make it
more challenging.34 The third used a model designed to simulate a care under fire scenario. Once the dressings had been
applied, no additional compression was applied. There was no
significant difference in survival, dressing success or total blood
loss between the three agents used.35 All of the dressing manufacturers recommend a period of compression immediately after
dressing application and pressure is one of the first steps in the
first aid control of any haemorrhage. It is therefore difficult to
use this study in direct comparison with other studies that
have demonstrated superior haemostasis with advanced haemostatic agents when applied according to the manufacturers’
recommendations.35 In the recent NMRU study, CEL was compared with the current US gold standard QCG. CEL prevented
visible bleeding from the wound for the longest period of time
and had the highest observed survival rate.28 Like QCX,
however, the dressing is almost twice the weight of QCG and
HCG and takes longer to pack into a wound. The study was
not designed to differentiate between performance differences
that were secondary to a higher dressing mass rather than difference in dressing type or weight of active ingredient.
MODIFIED RAPID DEPLOYMENT HAEMOSTAT
The mRDH dressing is manufactured using fully acetylated
poly-N-acetyl-glucosamine as its active ingredient. Its mechanism of action is thought to be via activation of platelets and
the coagulation cascade, local vasoconstriction and agglutination of red blood cells. The original rapid deployment haemostat was shown to be ineffective at controlling severe bleeding;8
however, the modified version, with a greater proportion of
active ingredient, has been demonstrated to be effective in both
venous and arterial haemorrhage and in coagulopathic
patients.36 A case series describes the use of mRDH during
combat operations in Iraq. Complete haemostasis was achieved
in 14 of 19 wounds although rebleeding occurred in three cases
on dressing removal.37 The mRDH bandage was also used to
control bleeding in a prospective observational study of 106
trauma victims. Wounds varied widely and the bandage was
used at the discretion of the physician; however, haemorrhage
was successfully controlled in 82% of patients.38 Both of these
reports focus on the use of mRDH in a hospital setting and in
several instances multiple dressings were required to control the
bleeding. As the most expensive dressing included in this
review, unless reduced, cost may preclude its widespread use in
a civilian prehospital setting. Recent comparative studies of
alternative haemostatic agents have also not included the
mRDH bandage making it difficult to directly compare their
relative efficacies.
SAFETY
All of the haemostatic agents described above are classed as
medical devices and have received regulatory approval for marketing. This means they are not required to undergo testing to
the same extent as pharmaceutical products prior to clinical
use. Several safety concerns have been raised over previous
haemostatic products. These have included the risk of secondary burns from the original zeolite QC granules,16 and the
potential for endothelial injury and distal thrombosis with
WoundStat granules.39 WoundStat is an aluminium phyllosilicate clay material that activates the intrinsic clotting cascade in
the same way as kaolin, the active ingredient in QCG. Despite
787
Downloaded from emj.bmj.com on September 7, 2013 - Published by group.bmj.com
Review
having a similar mechanism of action to WoundStat, the safety
of QCG is comparable with standard gauze.8 Chitosan based
products have had a long history of use in humans, both
during surgery and in the prehospital environment, without
any reported safety concerns. No side effects or adverse events
have been described in three case series reports of experience
with chitosan products.32 40 41 As chitosan is derived from
shellfish, patients with known shellfish allergies underwent
challenges with both chitosan powder and bandages. No
patients reacted adversely demonstrating that the product is
safe in these subjects.42
THE IDEAL HAEMOSTATIC AGENT
No single dressing matches all of the characteristics that
Kheirabadi describes an ideal haemostatic agent having (see
box).8 Although aimed at tactical use, the properties apply in
equal measure to a civilian prehospital environment. Material
form impacts on a dressing’s ease of use, ease of removal and
flexibility when fitting complex wounds. Granular products
that are poured into a wound may not be as effective as those
applied through an applicator as they are more difficult to place
on the point of bleeding.26 They tend to stick to wounds
making removal harder and have the added risk of
thrombo-emboli forming from loose granules that penetrate
into the vascular lumen.27 Lengthier gauze dressings take
longer to pack into a wound and will therefore delay the onset
of firm pressure and potentially the onset of haemostasis. The
thicker chitosan dressings such as HCF have been found to
stick together when in contact with blood outside the
wound.26
Dressings must be relatively inexpensive and cost effective.
Off the shelf prices of dressings currently available on the
market vary between £35 and £658 for each individual dressing
pack (see table 1). Catastrophic haemorrhage is thankfully a
relatively rare event in civilian emergency medical services in
the UK making a long shelf life crucial. Both the chitosan and
mineral based dressings described have a shelf life of 3 years
and remain stable and functional over a range of temperatures.
An ideal dressing would require little or no training. Granular
products are more difficult to apply deep into a wound close to
the point of bleeding. Experience using Celox granules for the
control of massive traumatic bleeding in an enhanced care
medical facility in Afghanistan found haemostasis more effective when an improvised applicator allowed the granules to be
applied deeper into the wound.32 Gauze dressings and compression have been used to treat wounds for decades. The gauze
haemostatic dressings follow the same application principles
and have a minimal training burden; however, any agent can
fail if applied incorrectly and appropriate training is the key to
minimise this risk.
CONCLUSIONS
In order to prevent blood loss and reduce the mortality associated with exsanguination and the development of the lethal
triad, novel haemostatic therapies are required in the prehospital environment. Recent military campaigns have driven rapid
improvements in technology and civilian emergency medical
services can learn from their experience. However, existing evidence to differentiate with real statistical significance between
the key dressings currently available on the market is limited.
There are very few published case series describing the use of
haemostatic dressings in a clinical setting. This reflects the
inherent difficulties of conducting research in the prehospital
environment, especially a randomised controlled trial. Patients
are often unable to provide consent and in a setting of catastrophic haemorrhage, the little time available must be used to
perform life saving interventions and assessments of patient eligibility prior to treatment would be inappropriate. Although
there are many anecdotal reports of haemostatic dressing use in
the media, in reality, a more robust system of data collection is
required to allow better evaluation and more realistic comparison between the dressings currently available.
Contributors AHS performed the literature review and wrote the article. MB and CL
reviewed the finished article prior to submission and provided support and advice. KP
reviewed the article prior to final submission.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Box Kheirabadi’s characteristics of the ideal haemostatic
dressing for tactical applications8
▸
▸
▸
▸
▸
▸
▸
▸
▸
▸
▸
▸
▸
▸
788
Approved for use in humans by appropriate regulatory body
Stops severe arterial and/or venous bleeding in 2 min or less
No toxicity or side effect
Causes no pain or thermal injury
Poses no risk to medics
Ready to use and requires little or no training
Durable and lightweight
Flexible enough to fit complex wounds and easily removed without
leaving residues
Stable and functional at extreme temperatures
Practical and easy to use in austere conditions (low visibility, wind,
rain, etc)
Effective on junctional wounds not amendable by tourniquet
Long shelf life (>2 years)
Inexpensive and cost effective
Biodegradable and bioabsorbable
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Kauvar DS, Lefering R, Wade CE. Impact of hemorrhage on trauma outcome: an
overview of epidemiology, clinical presentations, and therapeutic considerations.
J Trauma 2006;60(6 Suppl):S3–11.
Chesnut RM, Marshall LF, Klauber MR, et al. The role of secondary brain injury in
determining outcome from severe head injury. J Trauma 1993;34:216–22.
Riha GM, Schreiber MA. Update and new developments in the management of the
exsanguinating patient. J Intensive Care Med Published Online First: 11 July 2011.
doi:10.1177/0885066611403273
Rossaint R, Bouillon B, Cerny V, et al. Management of bleeding following major
trauma: an updated European guideline. Crit Care 2010;14:R52.
Watts DD, Trask A, Soeken K, et al. Hypothermic coagulopathy in trauma: effect of
varying levels of hypothermia on enzyme speed, platelet function, and fibrinolytic
activity. J Trauma 1998;44:846–54.
NCEPOD. Trauma: Who Cares? 2007.
Eastridge BJ, Hardin M, Cantrell J, et al. Died of wounds on the battlefield:
causation and implications for improving combat casualty care. J Trauma 2011;
71(1 Suppl):S4–8.
Kheirabadi B. Evaluation of topical hemostatic agents for combat wound
treatment. US Army Med Dep J 2011;Apr-Jun;2:25–37.
Kragh JF Jr, Littrel ML, Jones JA, et al. Battle casualty survival with emergency
tourniquet use to stop limb bleeding. J Emerg Med 2011;41:590–7.
Mabry RL, Holcomb JB, Baker AM, et al. United States Army Rangers in Somalia:
an analysis of combat casualties on an urban battlefield. J Trauma 2000;49:515–28;
discussion 28–9.
Sondeen JL, Pusateri AE, Coppes VG, et al. Comparison of 10 different hemostatic
dressings in an aortic injury. J Trauma 2003;54:280–5.
Arnaud F, Parreno-Sadalan D, Tomori T, et al. Comparison of 10 hemostatic
dressings in a groin transection model in swine. J Trauma 2009;67:848–55.
Arnaud F, Teranishi K, Tomori T, et al. Comparison of 10 hemostatic dressings in a
groin puncture model in swine. J Vasc Surg 2009;50:632–39.e1.
Granville-Chapman J, Jacobs N, Midwinter MJ. Pre-hospital haemostatic
dressings: A systematic review. Injury 2011;42:447–59.
Emerg Med J 2013;30:784–789. doi:10.1136/emermed-2012-201581
Downloaded from emj.bmj.com on September 7, 2013 - Published by group.bmj.com
Review
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Gerlach T, Grayson JK, Pichakron KO, et al. Preliminary study of the effects of
smectite granules (WoundStat) on vascular repair and wound healing in a swine
survival model. J Trauma 2010;69:1203–9.
Wright JK, Kalns J, Wolf EA, et al. Thermal injury resulting from application of a
granular mineral hemostatic agent. J Trauma 2004;57:224–30.
McManus J, Hurtado T, Pusateri A, et al. A case series describing thermal injury
resulting from zeolite use for hemorrhage control in combat operations. Prehosp
Emerg Care 2007;11:67–71.
Cox ED, Schreiber MA, McManus J, et al. New hemostatic agents in the combat
setting. Transfusion 2009;49(suppl 5):248S–55S.
Rhee P, Brown C, Martin M, et al. QuikClot use in trauma for hemorrhage control:
case series of 103 documented uses. J Trauma 2008;64:1093–9.
Arnaud F, Tomori T, Carr W, et al. Exothermic reaction in zeolite hemostatic
dressings: QuikClot ACS and ACS+. Ann Biomed Eng 2008;36:1708–13.
Kheirabadi BS, Edens JW, Terrazas IB, et al. Comparison of new hemostatic
granules/powders with currently deployed hemostatic products in a lethal model of
extremity arterial hemorrhage in swine. J Trauma 2009;66:316–26.
Clay JG, Grayson JK, Zierold D. Comparative testing of new hemostatic agents in a
swine model of extremity arterial and venous hemorrhage. Mil Med
2010;175:280–4.
Devlin JJ, Kircher S, Kozen BG, et al. Comparison of ChitoFlex, CELOX, and
QuikClot in control of hemorrhage. J Emerg Med 2011;41:237–45.
Kheirabadi BS, Scherer MR, Estep JS, et al. Determination of efficacy of new
hemostatic dressings in a model of extremity arterial hemorrhage in swine.
J Trauma 2009;67:450–9.
Schwartz RB, Reynolds BZ, Shiver SA, et al. Comparison of two packable
hemostatic Gauze dressings in a porcine hemorrhage model. Prehosp Emerg Care
2011;15:477–82.
Littlejohn LF, Devlin JJ, Kircher SS, et al. Comparison of Celox-A, Chitoflex,
WoundStat, and combat gauze hemostatic agents versus standard gauze dressing in
control of hemorrhage in a swine model of penetrating trauma. Acad Emerg Med
2011;18:340–50.
Ran Y, Hadad E, Daher S, et al. QuikClot Combat Gauze use for hemorrhage
control in military trauma: January 2009 Israel Defense Force experience in the
Gaza Strip—a preliminary report of 14 cases. Prehosp Disaster Med
2010;25:584–8.
Rall JR. Comparison of novel hemostatic gauzes to QuikClot Combat Gauze in a
standardized swine model of uncontrolled hemorrhage: Naval Medical Research
Emerg Med J 2013;30:784–789. doi:10.1136/emermed-2012-201581
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Unit, 2012:1–22. http://www.scribd.com/doc/87902673/Namru-sa-TechnicalReport-2012-22-30-Mar-12 (accessed Apr 2012).
Pusateri AE, McCarthy SJ, Gregory KW, et al. Effect of a chitosan-based
hemostatic dressing on blood loss and survival in a model of severe venous
hemorrhage and hepatic injury in swine. J Trauma 2003;54:177–82.
Sohn VY, Eckert MJ, Martin MJ, et al. Efficacy of Three Topical Hemostatic Agents
Applied by Medics in a Lethal Groin Injury Model. J Surg Res 2009;154:258–61.
Xie H, Lucchesi L, Teach J, et al. Comparison of Hemostatic Efficacy of ChitoGauze
and Combat Gauze in a Lethal Femoral Arterial Injury in Swine Model. http://www.
antpowerconsulting.com/video/brosur/Nato%20Degerlendirme%20-%
20MP-HFM-182-25-REAL.pdf (accessed Jan 2012).
Pozza M, Millner RWJ. Celox (chitosan) for haemostasis in massive traumatic
bleeding: experience in Afghanistan. Eur J Emerg Med 2011;18:31–3.
Kozen BG, Kircher SJ, Henao J, et al. An alternative hemostatic dressing:
comparison of CELOX, HemCon, and QuikClot. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:74–81.
Millner R, Lockhart AS, Marr R. Chitosan arrests bleeding in major hepatic injuries
with clotting dysfunction: an in vivo experimental study in a model of hepatic injury
in the presence of moderate systemic heparinisation. Ann R Coll Surg Engl
2010;92:559–61.
Watters JM, Van PY, Hamilton GJ, et al. Advanced hemostatic dressings are not
superior to gauze for care under fire scenarios. J Trauma 2011;70:1413–18.
Valeri CR, Vournakis JN. mRDH bandage for surgery and trauma: data summary
and comparative review. J Trauma 2011;71:S162–6.
King DR. Thirty consecutive uses of a hemostatic bandage at a US Army Combat
Support Hospital and Forward Surgical Team in Operation Iraqi Freedom. J Trauma
2011;71:1775–8.
King D, Cohn SM, Schreiber M, et al. A modified rapid deployment hemostat
bandage. Gen Surg News 2010;37.
Kheirabadi BS, Mac EJE, Terrazas IB, et al. Safety evaluation of new hemostatic
agents, smectite granules, and kaolin-coated gauze in a vascular injury wound
model in swine. J Trauma 2010;68:269–77.
Brown MA, Daya MR, Worley JA. Experience with Chitosan Dressings in a Civilian
EMS System. J Emerg Med 2009;37:1–7.
Wedmore I, McManus JG, Pusateri AE, et al. A special report on the
chitosan-based hemostatic dressing: experience in current combat operations.
J Trauma 2006;60:655–8.
Waibel KH, Haney B, Moore M, et al. Safety of chitosan bandages in shellfish
allergic patients. Mil Med 2011;176:1153–6.
789
Downloaded from emj.bmj.com on September 7, 2013 - Published by group.bmj.com
Haemostatic dressings in prehospital care
Adam Hewitt Smith, Colville Laird, Keith Porter, et al.
Emerg Med J 2013 30: 784-789 originally published online November
17, 2012
doi: 10.1136/emermed-2012-201581
Updated information and services can be found at:
http://emj.bmj.com/content/30/10/784.full.html
These include:
References
This article cites 36 articles
http://emj.bmj.com/content/30/10/784.full.html#ref-list-1
Email alerting
service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in
the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to:
http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
To order reprints go to:
http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform
To subscribe to BMJ go to:
http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/