Guest guest Posted December 30, 2003 Report Share Posted December 30, 2003 See, we were able to go from the Jihad to an evidence-based discussion of topical hemostatic agents. I hope folks learn not to take things at face value and question claims made by sales people (as Phil Reynolds did). The topic of hemostatic agents warranted a search of the literature. The only quality study showed TraumaDEX to be no more effective than dressing while QuikClot appeared more effective. In another study, the only product that worked was derived from fibrin and thrombin. These agents may be no more effective than simple dressings in prehospital care (the battlefield may be another story). Thus, from an evidence-based standpoint, can an EMS agency justify the purchase of these agents for routine prehospital care? The most important point, though, is that each person look at the information themselves and make their own determination instead of relying on sales pitches and experts. Many devices and products are sold to EMS like this with a paucity (if any) of supporting scientific literature. Thus, each of us must ask: 1. Will this improve my care of the patient? 2. Will this improve the patient's outcome? 3. Do the benefits outweigh the risks and the expense? Bledsoe, DO, FACEP Midlothian, TX [http://www.bryanbledsoe.com] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.