We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Control of massive hemorrhage (MH) is a life-saving intervention. The use of tourniquets has been studied in prehospital and battlefield settings but not in aquatic environments.
Objective:
The aim of this research is to assess the control of MH in an aquatic environment by analyzing the usability of two tourniquet models with different adjustment mechanisms: windlass rod versus ratchet.
Methodology:
A pilot simulation study was conducted using a randomized crossover design to assess the control of MH resulting from an upper extremity arterial perforation in an aquatic setting. A sample of 24 trained lifeguards performed two randomized tests: one using a windlass-based Combat Application Tourniquet 7 Gen (T-CAT) and the other using a ratchet-based OMNA Marine Tourniquet (T-OMNA) specifically designed for aquatic use on a training arm for hemorrhage control. The tests were conducted after swimming an approximate distance of 100 meters and the tourniquets were applied while in the water. The following parameters were recorded: time of rescue (rescue phases and tourniquet application), perceived fatigue, and technical actions related to tourniquet skills.
Results:
With the T-OMNA, 46% of the lifeguards successfully stopped the MH compared to 21% with the T-CAT (P = .015). The approach swim time was 135 seconds with the T-OMNA and 131 seconds with the T-CAT (P = .42). The total time (swim time plus tourniquet placement) was 174 seconds with the T-OMNA and 177 seconds with the T-CAT (P = .55). The adjustment time (from securing the Velcro to completing the manipulation of the windlass or ratchet) for the T-OMNA was faster than with the T-CAT (six seconds versus 19 seconds; P < .001; effect size [ES] = 0.83). The perceived fatigue was high, with a score of seven out of ten in both tests (P = .46).
Conclusions:
Lifeguards in this study demonstrated the ability to use both tourniquets during aquatic rescues under conditions of fatigue. The tourniquet with the ratcheting-fixation system controlled hemorrhage in less time than the windlass rod-based tourniquet, although achieving complete bleeding control had a low success rate.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.