The effects of QuikClot Combat Gauze and Celox Rapid on hemorrhage control

Objective: Compare QuikClot Combat Gauze (QCG) and Celox Rapid (CR) for initial hemostasis and over a 1-hour period.Design: Experimental study.Setting: Approved animal laboratory.Subjects: Twenty-one Yorkshire swine.Interventions: Subjects were randomly assigned to either the QCG (n = 11) or CR (n = 10) group. An arteriotomy was made in the right femoral artery with a 6-mm vascular punch. Bleeding was allowed for 45 seconds. QCG or CR was applied followed by firm pressure for 3 minutes according to Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care guidelines. A 10-pound weight simulating a pressure dressing was applied, and the wound was observed for 1 hour. Dressing failure was bleeding > 2 percent of blood volume.Main outcome measures: Achievement and maintenance of hemostasis and amount of hemorrhage during observation. Odds of successful hemostasis.Results: QCG was significantly better than CR in initial hemostasis (p = 0.049) and maintaining hemostasis over 1 hour (p = 0.020). One hundred percent of QCG subjects and 70 percent of CR subjects achieved initial hemostasis. During the 1-hour observation, one additional CR subject failed to maintain hemostasis. CR had significantly more hemorrhage than QCG during the 1-hour observation (p = 0.027). QCG had no bleeding compared to CR that had a mean of 162 ± 48 mL (standard error of mean) over 2 minutes. QCG had 15.9 times greater odds of success compared to CR over a period of 1 hour. Over the 1-hour observation time, 100 percent of QCG achieved hemostasis compared to 60 percent of CR.Conclusions: QCG is more effective than CR.