[Red Flag 1]

SS,

Thanks!!

It looks as though WS is no better/perhaps worse than a tourniquet in the final result. Amputation well above the WS application site likely the best treatment. Perhaps the initial results of WS application were a result of local vascular reaction that reduced local blood loss. It is clear that there was marked arterial reaction to WS.

Not the treatment of choice in a mid-limb injury, IMHO. I expect that WS was an attempt to provide the field medic with a quick apply and move on to the problem of hemostasis. I have seen WS discussed in other forums. There seems to be quite a bit of local vascular reaction to WS, with significant vascular tissue destruction! WS is not an apply and move on answer to bleeding from any site in the field. I am wondering if WS has made it into the civillian practice? My time now is mostly covering friends once or twice a month. I have not seen WS noted in any of my infrequent patients, have seen quick clot.


RF 1

ps: Has anyone seen any FDA response to WS ????

rf1