Civilian use of tourniquets saves lives and a lot of them.

Average tourniquet time for these patients was about 77 minutes. After multivariable analysis, the non-tourniquet group had almost six times greater odds of death than the group of patients who received a tourniquet (adjusted odds ratio: 5.86).
“This is the first time that we were actually able to prove the survival benefit of using the tourniquet in the civilian population,” said lead study author Pedro Teixeira, MD, FACS, of the University of Texas at Austin, Dell Medical School.

Civilian tourniquet use associated with six-fold reduction in mortality

This is great. A simple and inexpensive device that you can carry will give somebody injured (even you) a chance of living six times greater than not having a tourniquet.  I want you to pay attention to the 77 minute time because it is important and an eye opener: An untreated mayor injury to an extremity main artery will kill your in as short a time as 4 to 5 minutes.  The wound that has killed and will kill bullfighters is a rupture of the femoral by a well place horn. Some bullfighters did not even make it to the first aid station inside the plaza, many barely managed to be placed inside the ambulance that took them to the hospital.

Click to enlarge and cringe

We are talking that a wound that can kill a human being under 10 minutes, can be successfully controlled and life extended long enough to take that person to a hospital for emergency life-saving surgery.

And again, I will send you over Recon Medical because they have great tourniquets and it is the one I have around me all the time. But you get a decent brand and carry, I don’t care which, just have it with you.

4 Replies to “Civilian use of tourniquets saves lives and a lot of them.”

  1. Didn’t you post a video many moons back showing how “shoot them in the leg as a non-lethal option” was a myth?

    (IIRC police shot non-violent [bad guy] who refused to surrender, got a femoral hit, guy bled out in seconds)

    1. I was taught, way back in the 1970s, that tourniquets should be avoided and pressure is the thing. That doesn’t seem to be the guidance any more, at least not quite so strongly.
      Could you give your explanation why pressure should be tried first?

  2. I’m partial to the RATS tourniquet for it’s compact size and simplicity. Without a windlass, it might not be as powerful as the others, but it should still be sufficient.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick. Also, You can use html code to decorate your comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.