Comments on: You’ve got to be alive to be inconvenienced

By: Pat Brown, RN

Pat Brown, RN — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:45:48 +0000

Come on, now…as a fellow vet, we all know that there doesn’t HAVE to be a REASON–its just Army POLICY!!!

By: January 8 roundup

January 8 roundup — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:03:57 +0000

[...] “You’ve got to be alive to be inconvenienced”: some thoughts on the withdrawal of an emergency battlefield therapy [GruntDoc] [...]

By: NinjaMedic

NinjaMedic — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 13:18:48 +0000

Hey doc,

I’m en EMT currently who’s joining the Army this as a 68W (combat medic). I have a mentor who’s currently a 68W, and when this report came out he and I had a discussion about it….the general conscensus is that it’s a ridiculous ban on a product that saves lives.

If I am in the field and I don’t have any other way to control bleeding, you bet your ass I’m going to use a product that buys me and my patient some time – enough time to get them to a facility where their issues can be addressed in a controlled environment. Hospitals and physicians can mitigate emboli in a live patient. They can’t in a dead one.

The REAL kicker to this is that there haven’t been any problems reported with Woundstat in HUMAN subjects. No deaths, no life threatening emboli…by all accounts it does what it’s supposed to do: produce clots that can prevent your patient from bleeding out on you before you get to a hospital or treatment facility. The only “issues” that have been reported have been in animal studies.

It does what it’s supposed to do, and we use it as a last resort. I really don’t see that as a problem big enough to warrant removing it from use.

By: Gunner

Gunner — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:38:51 +0000

I use this phrase most every shift. Thank you Dr. Peacock

By: dragonfly

dragonfly — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 06:36:08 +0000

Battlefield first aid is generally not a joke. Gimme me the clot producing medicine thanks…

By: Greg P

Greg P — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 15:04:45 +0000

It might be that, if the product is used judiciously, it could be effective and safe. In the field, with blood gushing everywhere, it probably gets used with wild abandon, and so a limb is lost to vascular occlusion that might have been saved.

By: ArkieRN

ArkieRN — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 12:53:37 +0000

Guess they figured that the bleeding was less important. After all, it’s a proven fact that all bleeding stops….eventually.

By: Rogue Medic

Rogue Medic — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 12:33:54 +0000

This appears to be a case of the treatment working too well.

I have to agree with you. The clots can be treated in the hospital – if the patient survives to the hospital.

The loss of blood tends to be something that does not respond well to anything except control of the bleeding.

Usually the military is better at appropriately identifying priorities than that.

By: Dr. Val

Dr. Val — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:22:54 +0000

So the “sammich” generation is not seriously injured? :) Love the quote.