RATS tourniquet case studies or actual use reviews
- Thread starter PM07
- Start date
Ephraim R.
Newbie
Following. This is good stuff. I have one to try out but I find it not so much better than to replace my SOFTwide/CATs.
Bourneshooter
Blue Line Sheepdog
I know many who like the concept, but can't carry and won't recommend due to no lab testing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have nothing new to report on this front.
As TomF said, I've been trying to get more, but there doesn't seem to actually be more.
The RATS can occlude blow-flow very well, but it's hard to get the wraps evenly placed to form a wide continuous band, and very easy to get a couple of 1/2" to 1" apart wraps, particularly in self application, or when applying to a larger thigh (where only one or two wraps may be possible). Given it's narrow width, I think this is cause for concern, pending further studies or at the least case reports. I'm going to keep after that until something comes up, or it seems to be a total dead end. Will update here if/when anything new turns up.
As TomF said, I've been trying to get more, but there doesn't seem to actually be more.
The RATS can occlude blow-flow very well, but it's hard to get the wraps evenly placed to form a wide continuous band, and very easy to get a couple of 1/2" to 1" apart wraps, particularly in self application, or when applying to a larger thigh (where only one or two wraps may be possible). Given it's narrow width, I think this is cause for concern, pending further studies or at the least case reports. I'm going to keep after that until something comes up, or it seems to be a total dead end. Will update here if/when anything new turns up.
Bronson
Fury
Not that I have seen.
I purchased two for T&E and to show them in classes.
They were sent an RFI for medical studies approximately four months ago - nothing ever came of it.
They acted like a letter from someone at Harvard was the equivalent of a peer-reviewed medical study. I also had issues with their assertion that the RATS was the only TQ for canines.
I reckon they'll wait for testimonials from end users and use those in lieu of an actual medical study when pressed for information.
I purchased two for T&E and to show them in classes.
They were sent an RFI for medical studies approximately four months ago - nothing ever came of it.
They acted like a letter from someone at Harvard was the equivalent of a peer-reviewed medical study. I also had issues with their assertion that the RATS was the only TQ for canines.
I reckon they'll wait for testimonials from end users and use those in lieu of an actual medical study when pressed for information.
Bourneshooter
Blue Line Sheepdog
What other options exist for K-9 that are proven?
I was gonna buy a RATS for our K-9 but would rather get a proven item for him.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was gonna buy a RATS for our K-9 but would rather get a proven item for him.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the issue is the documented proven part.
Tourniquets for dogs aren't as big an issue as TQ's for people anyway, due to different anatomy. Dogs don't feed so much blood through their limbs as we do. The RATS would work on a dog, but I'm not going to replace my SWAT-T's and the few TK4's I have just for that purpose with the RATS anytime soon.
A good article on TQ's for Dogs just dropped over at Greg Ellifritz blog, Active Response Training: http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/emergency-management-of-severe-bleeding-in-dogs (I've met and taken course work with the DVM that wrote that, she's legit).
A good article on TQ's for Dogs just dropped over at Greg Ellifritz blog, Active Response Training: http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/emergency-management-of-severe-bleeding-in-dogs (I've met and taken course work with the DVM that wrote that, she's legit).
Matt Babika
CLEER Medical
RATS just published its letter of endorsement from an MD who conducted testing using true arteriography, not just doppler. The Doctor is a fellow of American college of cardiology and a SWAT med director in Tennessee.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Matt Babika
CLEER Medical
I will run this down for you and see if I can get it posted here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Matt Babika
CLEER Medical
This is the best way I could upload on here. Let me know if you can read clearly. If not we can work via email.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well? In uniform, I have one around my waist above the duty belt. It disappears except for the red part at my 11 o'clock.
JCSpringer
Regular Member
I recall seeing several postings on bookface poo pooing the letter. I like the TQ and have several. My question is this.
Does this form of endorsement qualify to the "same level as a tccc endorsement" or is it just the money and they'd do the same thing?
Does this form of endorsement qualify to the "same level as a tccc endorsement" or is it just the money and they'd do the same thing?
FWIW, The best TQ I've found for four legged critters is the NATO Tourniquet . There's no material issue getting it tight enough to occlude the blood flow like you have with the SOFT or CAT and it will stay above the shoulder where it's actually doing some good. I haven't tried the RATS TQ for this purpose but I wanted to mention it since K9s were brought up.
My dos pesos: I think there is value in this type of endorsement, but I also think that value is limited.
This sort of letter says that this one individual found the product valuable, based on their knowledge/past experience, testing and experience with the product, or just observation of the product. Depending on the individual making that statement, and what their qualifications are, and what constitutes their experience or testing of the item in question, their vouching for it MAY carry a lot of weight. A solid doc, with a solid set of experiences and credentials, providing his opinion based on actual experience, or serious testing, should be given consideration.
But, I think it's important to look at who is authoring these kinds of letters, and where they are coming from in both education and experience (are they a Johns Hopkins or U. of Washington grad, or an American University of the Caribbean grad like Dr. Watson..., are they involved in Tac Med, or what is it they do?) , as well as at the details of what they are reporting, as often the devil is in the details.
And either way, it will never carry the same weight as actual scientific testing, published studies, etc. (ala the famous NAVSEA TQ report of awhile back). Particularly not when it is used as smoke and mirrors in the absence of legit (peer reviewed, published) data, as such letters are most commonly used.
As for the "TCCC Approved" thing, if that's what you're musing about: That doesn't draw much water with me either. The Committee does not endorse products, to my understanding. A "TCCC Approved" endorsement comes from (again, as I understand it) a privately owned, for profit, entity that claims ownership of the phrase Tactical Combat Casualty Care and acronym TCCC. I view it much like NTOA product endorsements in it's value (and have been told I'm an asshole for that... by people who sell products with that endorsement... so I dunno).
But all that is just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it, of course.