Page 48 - JSOM Winter 2019

Mechanical Advantage Tourniquet (MAT) – FIGURE 15 Military Emergency Tourniquet.
SCORE: 29.33.
The MAT is a C-shaped plastic and hooked strap applied
around the limb with an integrated mechanical tightening sys-
tem. The most recent publication in medical literature includ-
ing the MAT was in 2009 as a case report in which the MAT
was applied a short distance above the knee, but successful
hemostasis was achieved only when it was moved proximally
to the mid-thigh. No compression pressure data were found
in medical literature and only one study reported application
times of mean 60.7 seconds (± 31.0) for arm applications (n = https://buyh&h.com/products/military-emergency-tourniquet
67
25) and 46.6 seconds (± 12.0) for leg applications (n = 25). -met-gen-iii
Based on available data, the MAT was not included in the cur-
rent CoTCCC-recommended tourniquets list. TABLE 87 MET/RTK Occlusion Efficacy
Total
FIGURE 14 Mechanical Advantage Tourniquet. Score Score Occlusion Efficacy n = Citation
Failed to achieve a >80% success
6 40 27
rate in four experimental conditions.
10 100% occlusion. 20 31
5.50
6 84.0% occlusion on arm 25 67
applications.
0 33.3% occlusion on leg applications. 25 67

TABLE 88 MET/RTK Time of Application
Total
Score Score Time (Speed) of Application n = Citation
Mean time of 117.75 seconds
0 (±64.69) on leg applications. 40 27
Mean time of 52.5 seconds (±28.8)
5 40 27
on arm applications.
Mean 61.40 seconds application
2.40 2 20 31
http://www.pyng.com/products/matcombat/ time.
Arm applications mean time of
0 100.9 seconds (± 43.5). 25 67
TABLE 86 MAT Occlusion Efficacy
Total 5 Leg applications with mean time of 25 67
54.1 seconds (± 23.8).
Score Score Occlusion Efficacy n = Citation
92.0% occlusion on arm
8 25 67
applications. Rapid Application Tourniquet System (RATS) –
2 69.5% occlusion on leg applications. 25 67 SCORE: 34.00.
4.50 5 88% effectiveness in phase I tests. 16 1
75% success rates led to the no The RATS is a narrow elastic band applied with circumferen-
3 further testing of the MAT in phase 12 1 tial stretching around the limb to achieve occlusion. There is
II tests. one (1) study on the RATS in the literature searched from 2011
to 2018. The single study by Gibson et al. reported a 95% oc-
clusion effectiveness (n = 20) and a mean application time of
Military Emergency Tourniquet (MET) and 99 seconds. There is no numerical compression pressure data
21
Response TK (RTK) – SCORE: 28.40. reported in studies. The RATS is 0.5 inch wide, which does not
The MET and RTK are open-loop windlass (aluminum) tour- meet the 1.5 inches minimum width requirements established
niquets using Velcro adhesion to strap with a single-routed by the tourniquet working group and previous consensus. 6,7,66
buckle. The MET scored a 5.50 out of 10 for occlusion effi- The one study reports an occlusion pressure of 190mmHg
cacy with only three studies found in literature (Table 87). No within the optimal range. There is no combat or civilian usage
compression pressure data were found in medical literature. documented in medical literature. The RATS was determined
Based on available data, the Military Emergency Tourniquet by the working group to have insufficient study data to make
(MET) was not included in the current CoTCCC-recom- recommendations at this time
mended tourniquets list. The MET was mentioned as one of
the most difficult tourniquets for the volunteers to apply and
tended to require multiple adjustments and reapplications to
achieve occlusion. 27

46 | JSOM Volume 19, Edition 4 / Winter 2019