Clumpner Brandon R, Polston Ryan W, Kragh John F, Westmoreland Ted, Harcke H Theodore, Jones John A, Dubick Michael A, Baer David G, Blackbourne Lorne H
J Spec Oper Med. 2013 Spring;13(1):34-41.
Common first aid tourniquets, like the Combat Application Tourniquet (CAT) of a windlass and band design, can have the band routed through the buckle in three different ways, and recent evidence indicates users may be confused with complex doctrine.
The purpose of the present study is to measure the differential performance of the three possible routings in order to better understand good tourniquet practice.
A training manikin was used by two investigators to measure tourniquet effectiveness, time to stop bleeding, and blood loss.
The effectiveness rate was 99.6% (239/240) overall. RESULTS were similar for both single-slit routings (inside vs. outside, p > 0.05). Effectiveness rates (yes-no results for hemorrhage control expressed as a proportion of iterations) were not statistically different between single and double routing. However, the time to stop bleeding and blood loss were statistically different (p < 0.05).
CAT band routing, through the buckle either singly or doubly, affects two key performance criteria: time to stop bleeding and volume of blood lost. Single routing proved to be faster, thereby saving more blood. Learning curves required to optimize user performance varied over 30-fold depending on which variable was selected (e.g., effectiveness vs. blood loss).
常见的急救止血带，如绞盘式和带状设计的战斗应用止血带（CAT），其带子穿过带扣的方式有三种，而最近的证据表明使用者可能会被复杂的操作方法弄糊涂。
本研究的目的是测量这三种可能的穿法的不同性能，以便更好地理解正确的止血带使用方法。
两名研究人员使用训练人体模型来测量止血带的有效性、止血时间和失血量。
总体有效率为99.6%（239/240）。两种单缝穿法（内侧与外侧，p>0.05）的结果相似。单穿法和双穿法之间的有效率（以迭代次数的比例表示的出血控制的是与否结果）无统计学差异。然而，止血时间和失血量有统计学差异（p<0.05）。
CAT止血带的带子穿过带扣的单穿法或双穿法会影响两个关键性能标准：止血时间和失血量。单穿法被证明更快，从而节省更多血液。根据选择的变量（例如，有效性与失血量），优化使用者操作所需的学习曲线变化超过30倍。
