Quikclot, Powder or sponge?

Vt.birdhunter · June 12, 2010, 07:27 AM

Was thinking of throwing a few packages of quickclot clotting agent into some packs and gear, noticed its sold as a powder (I assume you pour into wound) and as a sponge infused with the clotting agent.

Anyone with experience using these products?

Would you use different products for backpacking or similar then you would in your tactical gear?

I appreciate any thoughts, TYVM

RGR3/75 · June 12, 2010, 08:09 AM

quickclot is horrible. use the celox hemo powder or gauze. it clots a lot faster and doesn't have to be flushed out of the system. check out the celox-a applicator. use that in conjunction with the celox gauze and it works like magic.

urbantacticalgear · June 12, 2010, 06:15 PM

if you go with quikclot get the sponge, hold it in place with an izzy. if your treating a chest wound try a ascherman's or a bolin chest seal. if you MUST use a quikclot sponge on the abdominal cavity use a tightly wrapped GI bandage to hold in place.

RGR3/75 · June 13, 2010, 02:06 AM

the quickclot sponge in garbage. plus if your hands are bloody and you grab the bag it will instantly start to stick. you're gonna need way more than the sponge to stop any serious bleeding anyway

Vt.birdhunter · June 13, 2010, 08:29 AM

The celox gauze is looking like a decent product, product video shows it being shoved directly into the wound. Looks like an easy application process (although the applicator seems like it would do a great job of distributing the clotting agent along a longer wound channel).

If you use a powdered clotting agent, does it get left in the wound when you receive more extensive medical care?
Will they just sew you shut over the powder?

RGR3/75 · June 13, 2010, 10:43 AM

yea the applicator is meant to just be left in the body and it will dissolve. not the case with quickclot. celox-a is good for initial wound clotting, and you hopefully won't have to use so much gauze. i mean you're gonna end up using like 2.5-3 rolls on an artery so whatever you can get in there to stop it the better. i can pm you my setup if you want

Neruda · June 14, 2010, 05:31 PM

Another advantage, I hear, of Celox over Quicklot is that Celox doesn't generate the considerable heat that Q does.

tacmedicp94 · June 15, 2010, 12:50 AM

Don't use the powder. On windy days it can get blown all over the place. From what i understand one of the reasons the impregnated sponges were developed is due to the powder being blown into the medics eyes. The original quickclot produced a lot of heat. I can only imagine the stuff in your eyes. The newer generations supposedly do not produce as much heat. I carry quickclot sponges simply because that's what they give me (probably because it's a little cheaper). It has worked well in a couple of times I've used it. Just remember that you still have to apply pressure to the wound, sometimes for up to 5 minutes.

I really like what I've seen with the celox. It produces no heat, and will clot hypothermic, and hepronized(thinned) blood. The price is getting pretty comparable to quickclot so if I was buying for myself, Celox is what i would get. The applicator, while I've never seen it demonstrated, looks like a good idea. The clot that the Celox forms can be washed away easily using just water, so cleaning of the wound before final/surgical closure should be much easier.

Adam

June 12, 2010, 07:27 AM	#1
Vt.birdhunter Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 2009 Posts: 637	Quikclot, Powder or sponge? Was thinking of throwing a few packages of quickclot clotting agent into some packs and gear, noticed its sold as a powder (I assume you pour into wound) and as a sponge infused with the clotting agent. Anyone with experience using these products? Would you use different products for backpacking or similar then you would in your tactical gear? I appreciate any thoughts, TYVM

June 12, 2010, 08:09 AM	#2
RGR3/75 Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2009 Location: Colorado Springs CO/Columbus GA Posts: 154	quickclot is horrible. use the celox hemo powder or gauze. it clots a lot faster and doesn't have to be flushed out of the system. check out the celox-a applicator. use that in conjunction with the celox gauze and it works like magic. __________________ True Grit

June 13, 2010, 02:06 AM	#4
RGR3/75 Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2009 Location: Colorado Springs CO/Columbus GA Posts: 154	the quickclot sponge in garbage. plus if your hands are bloody and you grab the bag it will instantly start to stick. you're gonna need way more than the sponge to stop any serious bleeding anyway __________________ True Grit

June 13, 2010, 10:43 AM	#6
RGR3/75 Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2009 Location: Colorado Springs CO/Columbus GA Posts: 154	yea the applicator is meant to just be left in the body and it will dissolve. not the case with quickclot. celox-a is good for initial wound clotting, and you hopefully won't have to use so much gauze. i mean you're gonna end up using like 2.5-3 rolls on an artery so whatever you can get in there to stop it the better. i can pm you my setup if you want __________________ True Grit

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

June 12, 2010, 06:15 PM	#3
urbantacticalgear Member Join Date: January 5, 2010 Posts: 19	if you go with quikclot get the sponge, hold it in place with an izzy. if your treating a chest wound try a ascherman's or a bolin chest seal. if you MUST use a quikclot sponge on the abdominal cavity use a tightly wrapped GI bandage to hold in place.

June 13, 2010, 08:29 AM	#5
Vt.birdhunter Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 2009 Posts: 637	The celox gauze is looking like a decent product, product video shows it being shoved directly into the wound. Looks like an easy application process (although the applicator seems like it would do a great job of distributing the clotting agent along a longer wound channel). If you use a powdered clotting agent, does it get left in the wound when you receive more extensive medical care? Will they just sew you shut over the powder?

June 14, 2010, 05:31 PM	#7
Neruda Member Join Date: February 28, 2006 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 79	Another advantage, I hear, of Celox over Quicklot is that Celox doesn't generate the considerable heat that Q does.

June 15, 2010, 12:50 AM	#8
tacmedicp94 Junior Member Join Date: January 17, 2009 Posts: 3	Don't use the powder. On windy days it can get blown all over the place. From what i understand one of the reasons the impregnated sponges were developed is due to the powder being blown into the medics eyes. The original quickclot produced a lot of heat. I can only imagine the stuff in your eyes. The newer generations supposedly do not produce as much heat. I carry quickclot sponges simply because that's what they give me (probably because it's a little cheaper). It has worked well in a couple of times I've used it. Just remember that you still have to apply pressure to the wound, sometimes for up to 5 minutes. I really like what I've seen with the celox. It produces no heat, and will clot hypothermic, and hepronized(thinned) blood. The price is getting pretty comparable to quickclot so if I was buying for myself, Celox is what i would get. The applicator, while I've never seen it demonstrated, looks like a good idea. The clot that the Celox forms can be washed away easily using just water, so cleaning of the wound before final/surgical closure should be much easier. Adam