Page 61 - Journal of Special Operations Medicine - Fall 2016

Figure 1 Study flowchart. Figure 3 Effectiveness and BMI.

BMI, body mass index; CRoC, Combat Ready Clamp; SJT, SAM Junc-
tional Tourniquet.

The average measure of tightening for CRoC was 4.8cm
when used with the SOFTT-NH and 5.3cm when used
alone. The average measure of tightening for SJT was
five pump compressions when used with the SOFTT-
NH and six when used alone.

The average BMI of volunteers on whom the SOFTT-NH
CRoC, Combat Ready Clamp; Echo, echography; SJT, SAM Junc- was ineffective was higher than that of those on whom
tional Tourniquet.
either the CRoC (23.9kg/m versus 26.7kg/m ) or SJT
2
2
(24.3kg/m versus 27.1kg/m ) was effective. However,
2
2
averaged 24.3kg/m . After the physical exercise, the av- the difference was not statistically significant between
2
erage systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart the two devices (CRoC: p = .39; SJT: p = .32) (Figure 3).
rate were, respectively, 147mmHg, 73mmHg, and 88
beats per minute.
In the same way, the average systolic and diastolic
blood pressures of the subjects on whom the CRoC or
No statistically significant differences were noted be- SJT were ineffective were higher than that of subjects
tween the CRoC and the SJT groups with respect to on whom either of the devices were effective (CRoC:
demographics and clinical data: age, BMI, sex, rank, systolic, 173mmHg versus 146.1mmHg, respectively,
seniority, Combat Casualty Care level, systolic and dia- and diastolic, 89mmHg versus 72.5mmHg, respectively;
stolic blood pressures, and heart rate.
SJT: 168.8mmHg versus 146.3mmHg, respectively;
81.8mmHg versus 74.1mmHg, respectively). However,
Effectiveness Results the difference was not significant between the two de-
The CRoC was effective in 97.2% of volunteers when vices (CRoC: p = .15 and .16, respectively; SJT: p = .14
used as a supplementary tourniquet and in 91.7% when and 17, respectively).
used alone. The SJT was effective in 89.5% of volun-
teers in association with SOFTT-NH and 86.9% when Time-to-Effectiveness Results
used alone. These differences were not statistically sig- The SJT required a significantly shorter average time to
nificant (p = .36 and .71, respectively) (Figure 2).
effectiveness than CRoC (respectively, 34 seconds versus
41 seconds; p = .029) (Figure 4). However, this difference
Figure 2 Comparison of CRoC and SJT effectiveness.
was more significant when the two junctional tourniquets
were used from their packaged state. Indeed, the average
time required to assemble the CRoC was 45 seconds. As
for the SJT, no assembly operation before use is required.
Therefore, without being preassembled, the CRoC would
have required an average 86 seconds to reach effective-
ness versus the 34 seconds for the SJT (p < .001).

Subjective Performance Results
The questionnaire was completed by all volunteers and
CRoC, Combat Ready Clamp; SJT, SAM Junctional Tourniquet. junctional tourniquet users. First, pain was assessed

Junctional Tourniquet Evaluations 43