Is the R.A.T.S. Tourniquet Misleading Consumers with TCCC Approval? - ITS Tactical
 

Is the R.A.T.S. Tourniquet Misleading Consumers with TCCC Approval?

By Bryan Black

**Update** On September 7, 2016 at a meeting for the Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care, the following text was included in their public minutes. “The term “Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC)” was developed as a US Military work product, and as such, should be in the public domain. A provisional trademark for this term that was inappropriately granted to a private sector individual several years ago and caused recurring issues in TCCC training and recommendations. This trademark has now been surrendered by the private sector individual after legal action contesting his ownership.”

I have an issue with the R.A.T.S. Tourniquet and what I feel is misleading information in regards to the company’s “TCCC Approval” marking. You might too once you read what I have to say.

First off, I’d like to explain what the Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care’s guidelines are, because it’s important to understand the development of this committee and all they’ve done for tactical medicine. I’ll also note that the guidelines are commonly referred to as TCCC guidelines and were designed to provide U.S. Combat Medics and trained military personnel with a framework to manage combat trauma on the battlefield.

TCCC Guidelines

The TCCC guidelines have three primary goals. Treat the casualty, prevent additional casualties and complete the mission. The most critical phase of care in combat is from the time of injury until the patient reaches higher echelon care, or a surgically capable medical treatment facility. The guidelines break this critical time into three definitive phases; care under fire, tactical field care and tactical evacuation care.

If you’ve been reading ITS for the past six years, you’ve probably read our articles that have kept up with the CoTCCC’s updates to their guidelines, which have been in a constant state of evolution since the original TCCC guidelines were published in 1996. The CoTCCC is composed of trauma surgeons, emergency medicine physicians, combatant unit physicians, combat medics, corpsmen and PJs. It has representation from every branch of the Military, all having deployment experience. For an idea of just what the committee does when it meets, check out the minutes of their latest meeting. Also, if you’ve never read over the TCCC Guidelines, you can find the most recent updates here on ITS.

CoTCCC vs USTCCC.com

Now that you’re up to speed on what the CoTCCC is and what the guidelines they release are, let’s get into what’s causing confusion. There’s a commercial company named Tactical Combat Casualty Care that has trademarked the words “Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC).” As a fellow business owner, I understand the need to trademark what you’ve worked hard to create, but I question the decision of this particular company to trademark these words.

trademark

I primarily call this into question because the trademark was filed on March 20th, 2012. When filing a trademark, a company has to describe a class of goods and services they want a trademark to protect and in this case, the company chose to go into Class 041, which falls under educational services. Additionally on a trademark application, a company is required to list the date they first used the desired trademark and the date they first used the desired trademark in commerce. In the case of the company Tactical Combat Casualty Care, the first use date was February 1st, 2006 and the first use in commerce date was March 1st, 2006.

Looking at the timeline of 2006 when the company, Tactical Combat Casualty Care, is claiming they first used the name and added it to a product for sale commercially, you’ll see this is ten years after the CoTCCC first established it in their TCCC guidelines. As I mentioned in an example a few weeks back with my Wounded Warrior Project Article, I also believe this to be a non-enforceable trademark against the CoTCCC, because of the date they first started using the term. I’m not a trademark lawyer, so this is purely my own opinion on the matter, based on my knowledge of trademark law that I’ve had to educate myself on with owning my own business.

Our Law Enforcement Correspondent, Eric S., regularly attends the Special Forces Medical Association Scientific Assembly and wrote a great article at the end of last year about just what the TECC is and their updates from SOMA. During TECC meetings he heard first hand from CTECC and CoTECC members about trademark infringement claims by the company Tactical Combat Casualty Care and their opposition to the TECC and CoTCCC using the term “TCCC.”

Approval vs. Recommendation

Trademark disputes and the long backstory aside, the real crux of my issue comes from what the company Tactical Combat Casualty Care is doing with their approval on a product called the R.A.T.S. Tourniquet. The R.A.T.S. Tourniquet is now printing “TCCC Approved” on the tourniquet, which I believe is misleading considering it’s not approved by the CoTCCC. It is approved by the company Tactical Combat Casualty Care.

The CoTCCC (Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care) doesn’t approve medical devices. In the case of tourniquets, they’ve only ever “recommended” specific tourniquets and the only two that are currently recommend in their guidelines are the CAT (Combat Application Tourniquet) and the SOFTT (SOF Tactical Tourniquet).

I believe from my own opinion as a consumer that the TCCC Approved label on the R.A.T.S. Tourniquet is misleading, as it implies approval by the CoTCCC. As mentioned earlier in this article, the CoTCCC came out with their original guidelines in 1996 and since that time has been regularly releasing updates to their TCCC guidelines. This predates the company Tactical Combat Casualty Care’s first use in commerce of 2006. Labeling this device with this approval mislead me into believing they’d somehow received an endorsement from the CoTCCC.

Being in the military prior to 2006, TCCC was already a recognized term to me, which I associated with the CoTCCC. I’d argue many others with and without a military background believe TCCC to refer to the CoTCCC as well.

RATS Tourniquet TCCC Approved 02

“TCCC Approved”

Just to be clear, I’m not calling into question the efficacy of the R.A.T.S. Tourniquet, simply the manufacturer’s choice to label it TCCC Approved. The R.A.T.S. Tourniquet has many resellers, including the very Tactical Combat Casualty Care company which approved it. This makes it a more serious issue in my opinion. Having the TCCC Approved label without disclosing what that approval actually means is misleading in my book.

The company Tactical Combat Casualty Care has recently published an open letter addressing their affiliation, or lack thereof, with the CoTCCC. I found the position by their owner, Raffaele DiGiorgio, to be unnecessarily defensive. In the letter, which you can read here, Mr. DiGiorgio states that people’s frustration around his trademarking of TCCC is out of “jealousy that they didn’t think of it first” and that his company isn’t given the same consideration as larger entities when it comes to the enforcement of its trademarks.

He goes on to further call into question the endorsement (read recommendation) of products by the CoTCCC by citing examples of CAT Tourniquet failures in the field and the CoTCCC’s “dubious support” of Combat Gauze when a Z-Medica director sits on the committee. I’m not quite sure what all this has to do with the flack he’s catching for his trademarks though. I believe that it has nothing to do with jealousy or not feeling that Mr DiGiorgio’s rights to enforce trademarks are legitimate, it’s more so his reasoning for trademarking TCCC in the first place.

That and providing a TCCC approved endorsement for products like the R.A.T.S. Tourniquet. Perception is reality and in this case I feel the public is being led to perceive the R.A.T.S tourniquet carries an endorsement that it doesn’t.

What do you think? Is the R.A.T.S. tourniquet misleading consumers with their TCCC Approval?

References

Are you getting more than 14¢ of value per day from ITS?

Thanks to the generosity of our supporting members, we’ve eliminated annoying ads and obtrusive content. We want your experience here at ITS to be beneficial and enjoyable.

At ITS, our goal is to provide different methods, ideas and knowledge that could one day save your life. If you’re interested in supporting our mission and joining our growing community of supporters, click below to learn more.

Discussion

  • rickcolosimo

    There is such a thing as common-law trademark infringement as well, and what you’re describing sounds like the general category of customer confusion. That’s the big no-no in trademark law. The trademark system is a little odd when it comes to filing TMs in that a person can file in one category and sidestep, as was done here, any pre-existing mark that might exist. Even then, it’s normally the case that the later user can’t displace an earlier user (think of the World Wrestling Federation trying to displace the World Wildlife Fund — wrestling is now WWE because they lost).

    Confusion is bad particularly because it’s misleading, along the lines you’ve described. Ultimately, some people are more than willing to try to glom onto someone else’s goodwill, especially if there’s money involved.

    Good article.

  • Pitre Hall

    this TQ is junk and no medic military or civilian should use it

  • Robbie CaptMilkbone Baxter

    Love them. Had them over a year and no issues. They work even if you have only one good hand. ITS you need to make a good pouch for these. The others that tried Failed!

  • Robbie CaptMilkbone Baxter

    Why? If you bought the cheep china knock off maybe. But if you ordered from them direct they are stout.

  • Rickcolosimo is right. A term used in trade even if not formally trademarked by the USPTO, acquires a quite powerful common law trademark. My Inkling Books is protected in that manner. 

    This company is not only intruding into that trademark, it seems to be deliberately trying to exploit the confusion with that “TCCC Approve” label.

    I’d strongly suggest that the real TCCC consult a good trademark lawyer. One might even be willing to work for what a court will award him. ACT QUICKLY. Trademarks only as good as the defense you mount for them. The classic illustration is that Aspirin was once a Bayer trademark. They didn’t defend it and lost it.
    Again, I strongly suggest that the TCCC talk with a lawyer and do so promptly. A lot of legal clocks start counting down from when you first hear about an infraction. 
    I suspect this firm knows precisely what it is doing and will back down quickly if confronted with the threat of a lawsuit. Were I the real TCCC, I’d not only force a name change to something that isn’t confusing, I demand a hefty payment for each month’s delay. I used to work for a firm that was getting $1000 a month until an infractor could make the changeover.
    In the future, the TCCC might want to acquire a formal trademark. The cost isn’t that great in comparison to the harm that can result if your name gets used deceptively.

    • InklingBooks They discussed this at the SOMA meeting which I attended. The C-TECC and Co-TCCC committee members are in the process of working on the issue. The big problem is Mr. DiGiorgio is dragging them into a legal battle unnecessarily which they will have to pay for out of the limited budget they have.

  • R Matthews

    FYI the RATS is not owned by TCCC (Mr Di Giorgio)! It is owned by Mr Jeff Kirkham owner and and founder of RATS.

    You may want to check your information before posting inaccuracies on your page!

  • SurvivorMed

    Wow, I will make sure to point out this BS in my TCCC training from now on. This is clearly an attempt to mislead people. Not cool when lives are on the line.

  • Robbie CaptMilkbone Baxter

    They may miss lead a bit but they tell you all you need to know on the package label. ..

  • SurvivorMed

    It’s not a case of whether you think they work. These guys are trying to mislead people into buying a product that has not been proven to work in battle and undergone the extensive review process of CoTCCC.

  • Robbie CaptMilkbone Baxter

    I see your point and don’t disagree however they aren’t the only ones in the industry doing that, not by a long shot.

  • Eric Southland

    There should be no threshold for misleading (a bit) when it comes to a life saving device.

  • Robbie CaptMilkbone Baxter

    Half the products found in the medical industry on the market today are misleading. if something works it might get certified if politics are wrong it won’t I don’t think it’s that big a deal as long as the item works as advertised. That is key, it has to work properly.

  • Matt Mudcat Hartenberger

    Seems like a pretty small surface area to me. I thought at least 2″ was the standard.

  • Eric Graves

    It states blatantly TCCC.

  • Eric Graves

    Who else is marketing their product as TCCC approved when it is not?

  • Robbie CaptMilkbone Baxter

    Not necessarily TCCC but many medical products mislead. Some if your lucky have tiny disclaimers on them or not… pick an item found in the hospital and you will find misleading information about what it can do on half of them. The only time I have issue is if it can’t meet the qualifications and does not work, in this case it works and works well as long as you’re not buying the Chinese knockoff.

  • Eric Southland

    No other product or company is this blatant. Listen, cops and others (like teachers) may not know the difference and keep up with this stuff. This is nothing more than slick advertising to get sales.
    It drives me nuts when I see good companies selling these when there is a huge issue with the labeling. If the RATS works, that’s great, but don’t mislead those who don’t know any better.

  • Robbie CaptMilkbone Baxter

    ^ Agree!
    If only we lived in a perfect world lol

  • Simon-Luc Lavoie

    There is not a single study proving it will stop arterial hemorrhage.

  • Rhys Matthews

    ITS you may want to check your sources of information as RATS is not owned by TCCC!

    • Joe

      I believe the article stated TCCC is a reseller not the owner.

  • Vincent Redford

    Hey I remember seeing the advertisement for this when it was a new product.I really hope its not the company I think.Do you guys happen to know who the product manufacturer is to confirm.

  • Mike Jones

    Terry Paisley

  • Terry Paisley

    Collin Trevor Dye

  • Collin Trevor Dye

    Show me proof they work instead of saying they do.
    Doppler, studies, tissue, etc.

  • Chris Doucette

    I only run CATs or SOF-T’s for this reason. They’re battle tested, and proven hundreds if not thousands of times.

  • Robbie CaptMilkbone Baxter

    Only prof I can offer that they work is that I own some and have tried them. I was introduced to them by a medic who was given some to try. They liked them and I ordered some to try. Like I said I have had no issues with how they work. The misleading issue is a bad thing but the product is good. That’s it.

  • Simon-Luc Lavoie

    Did you try it on a 200 to 250 lbs muscular dude’s thigh with a doppler?
    There is not a single study out there that says the RATS will stop arterial hemorrhage in the lower limbs.
    I trust my life and my patients lives on science, not some, meh tried it looked alright so I decided to carry one.
    The is a reason that CoTCCC (CCCWG in Canada) has recommended only two Tq. After extensive tests in combat environment they where the only two that succeeded in stopping arterial flow and were easy to use.
    Easy to use is worthless when all your blood is in the sand…

  • gtrspeed

    Good article.  Yes, I believe it to be deliberately misleading for the RATS TQ to state that it is “TCCC approved.”  I first heard that statement made by the designer of the RATS in a YouTube video.  It seemed odd, because as you stated, CoTCCC doesn’t approve specific brands of products, they recommend types of products (i.e. occlusive dressings, not HALO seals, etc.).  I had no idea there was a company named TCCC until I read this article.

  • Erik Olsen

    Does it come standard with a chest needle? >.

  • Robbie CaptMilkbone Baxter

    No need to be insulting. My belt can be made to work also. Studies are good but only after field tests back them up on real world use. Studies that promise drugs or hip joints ect are going to do this and that are used all the time to justify them. Yet how often are they recalled and every tv lawyer starts asking if you are owed money… ect. Just a year later. My point is try it decide for yourself before going off all holier-than-thou 😉

  • Simon-Luc Lavoie

    I didn’t intend to be insulting. Sorry english is not my first language.
    What I meant, is that the RATS has not been tested in battle like situation. Only the CAT and SOFT are tested and proven to work everytime, all the time.

  • Robbie CaptMilkbone Baxter

    Btw I am over 250lb lol

  • Eric Southland
  • William Mills

    To everybody saying this is junk. Keep in mind that TQs used by major medical facilities (hospitals) is literally just a little rubber tube.

    • DrStrangelove

      The tourniquets to which you are referring are for venipuncture only.  Not a tourniquet in the sense you imply.  However, the tourniquets used in orthopedic surgeries are wide and similar to blood pressure cuffs.

  • Nicholas Zuber

    Ill stick to my proven TK4Ls…

  • Collin Trevor Dye

    A belt can slow bleeding but can NOT do complete arterial occlusion, at least not on a consistent basis.
    (Also The TK4L have a 33% FAILURE rate on Legs in a study done by the Navy. That’s a consistent, catastrophic failure. )
    I want my patient to have the best possible outcome. (y)
    You may want to study up a bit.
    We don’t get this data from “we tried it.”
    We get this data through not only rigorous testing (Doppler and Tissue) but through injured humans on not only battlefields but right here at home, from police officers to the Boston Bombing.
    (y)

  • David W. Williar

    No sir! I’ve been a medic for quite sometime, both civilian world and military. Never have I used “a little rubber tube” as a TQ.

  • Nicholas Zuber

    What study was that, Collin? The older one I saw didnt have that.

  • John Hirschbock

    To start IVs a rubber tube might be used but not hemorrhage control

  • William Mills

    John Hirshbock, you are correct I’ve got family who work in the ICU and misunderstood what they were getting at talking about TQs.

  • Cain Namet

    I own three. In addition to several CAT’s. The product works. I’ve used pulse ox and have managed to cut off all oxygenation. You can get that tourniquet so unbelievably tight too. I have no doubt in the ability of this tourniquet.

  • Matthew Mahler

    But the internetz combat experts said it’s great… Though I admire the desire to innovate a lot of these things are no better than the cravat tq which was made free by everyone prior to fancy cat and sof-t issue

  • Aaron Furey

    Who cares? It’s a good product that does what it says. I have converted over to RATS for all my kits.

  • Chris Sandoval

    Most of the ED nurses I know refer to a constricting as a tournequet. A constricting bands purpose is to occlude venous return prior to veinipuncture.

  • Kevin Mitch

    I work through two of the largest trauma centers in the country and both carry commercial TQs for hemorrhage control. UPMC Presbyterian has CATs if that tells you anything.

  • Kevin Mitch

    They didn’t say it was. They said that the manufacturer is placing an endorsement on the product from a company that is not affiliated with the CoTCCC whos endorsement this is actually implying.

  • Simon-Luc Lavoie

    And can get a pulseox to loose ready just by sqeezing your arm with my bare hands. You need a doopler to properly test a Tq.

  • Miles Downing

    Potato

  • Kurt Schultz

    Joe Rode Elkin this is the one

  • Joe Rode Elkin

    That’s it!

  • jaredd624

    i just checked Re Factor Tacticals website and it says such  Q: Is this TCCC approved?
    A:
    TCCC does not approve or deny any medical equipment for the military as
    it is no longer a function of the committee. Authority lies with the
    medical director of each area or jurisdiction. With that said, the
    R.A.T.S. is currently undergoing evaluation by TCCC. So far voting
    members of TCCC have tested and recommended the R.A.T.S. for use.

    • jaredd624 I have yet to see the RATS mentioned in any of the Co-TCCC studies, notes, journal watches, article abstracts, JSOM publication, or otherwise. 
      Where is the study, note, journal, article that says they have tested and recommend the RATS for use?

  • Tyler Jackson

    We use this I’m my platoon (Infantry) … It does cut off way more blood flow than our CATs ….I can also use this with one arm on myself . It’s quicker to put on than CATs and it causes less pain and will potentially prevent damage (waiting for study) that the CAT can and does cause in some cases…. Havnt seen a “study” but from observation and training use this looks promising…. TCCC thing (branding) is not that important to me. I carry CATs still because everyone knows how to put one on me (training) but I also carry the RAT for my Platoon and myself….

  • Jared DeVault

    This is from ReFactor Tactical’s website

  • Nathaniel Welsh

    Does CATs’ mislead? Yea, because where on the package does it say make sure your skinny and have a well trained person put it on you other I am going to suck your shit into the windless. It to me is just another example of people shitting on a company just because they have nothing better to do. Everyone grow up, If the RATS works then just shut the hell up.

  • Brett Bowen

    Would imagine a TQ that is secure enough to remain in place for extended periods of movement and can be applied one handed are not features as critical in a hospital environment, which would be your destination if you were wearing one anywhere else.

  • Greg Natsch

    I must be old. I remember teaching PHTLS in the military, C4, TC3… Trademarking TCCC seems a bit much. So if anyone teaches tactical combat casualty care, it’s an infringement? Or is it if you capitalize it?

  • Franklin Riddle

    Controversial product, you won’t find one in my kit or as a demo in any of my courses. I’ll explain in detail when I see yall Sunday at the WAC. …and “TCCC” is not CoTCCC… Big difference. I’ll also explain in greater detail

  • Pitre Hall

    gotta compares apples to apples……battlefield tourniquets to control bleeding must be more robust that surgical tubing in a hospital (i.e. hospital is a controlled environment with diff equipment, meds and alternate means of controlling bleeding and staff that have a higher level of training than a combat medic or 8404)

  • Eric Graves

    I don’t have a dog in the fight either, and this may be the greatest thing since sliced bread but the terminology can definitely mislead and that’s an issue.

  • Vincent Redford

    Thanks for the link.After reading more about the inventor my opinion is the same as before.Great company making honest products.I’de trust it to stop a chainsaw injury any day.

  • Eric Southland

    So this statement should only further confuse things for people who do not keep up with this stuff. On one hand you have “TCCC Approved” on the product from the manufacturer, but then the reseller says it is not “TCCC” approved.

  • Eric Southland

    It could be the best tourniquet in the world, but if so why use deceptive advertising to sell it? That is the issue here.

  • Orry Jenkins

    Mike Baldree tell Strider…
    Benjamin

  • Eric Southland

    Then you add to the fact that the USTCCC logo looks a lot like the BCCTPC logos. Wonder why that is?

  • SWAT-T

    Collin Trevor Dye we read your article too, in full favor of the CAT. Just know, despite popular belief, there is no perfect TQ…including the CAT. Attached JSOM study, 17% effectivness. There is good data to support elastomer based TQs as an equally effective (or more effective) option.

  • JR Grounds

    Wow…so many misguided replies here it scares me. Without starting a troll contest, let’s just say I would hope you put a CAT on me if I ever need help.

  • Jacob Goldman

    Any thoughts on this, Alex?

  • Justin Day

    ^ boom Eric … My thoughts also!!!!

  • Даниил Михаил

    Should leave the designer to rely on it.

  • Robert Cupps

    Ya not approved

  • Alex Ko

    Jacob i love the RATS TQ ever since my bud Parajumper Josh introduced me to them a while back. I always have at least one on me at all times usually laced into my EDC pack. On the range I will have one in a pistol mag pouch at my 6 o’clock on the belt. It’s out of the way and I can reach it quickly using either hand.

  • Scott Van Scheik

    It pays to remember, you’re a demographic to market.
    Caveat Emptor.

  • Aaron Ramone

    Yeah – places that stock blood. That’s the only reason

  • Aaron Ramone

    Don’t bet your life on it… We’ve done quite a bit of testing on these and did not have positive results. I would not use one as an alternative to an effective TQ

  • Damian K

    SWAT-T, I read the same study… though it deemed that the CAT wasnt being properly placed, not that the product itself is defective.

  • Andrew Moore

    Drew

  • Drew Nicholson

    I wouldn’t carry it to a deployment but compared to the SOFT or CAT, it has a very small footprint and can be stored easier and worn over my belt and under my shirt. It’s something to keep as a backup or EDC.

  • Andrew Moore

    Touche

  • theemsdoc

    Our team just got approval for a formal IRB approved study to compare all of the commercially available tourniquets on our local SWAT team members during training; this will be one of the devices tested. Looking forward to sharing the results

    • theemsdoc What type of study are you guys doing? There is so much solid data to support the CAT and SOFTT-W it seems like a waste of time to me. But, I did buy a RATS to see for myself and I would not trust my life to it.

  • Hemos39

    I thinks it’s unethical for the Company Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC Company) to approve a tourniquet fully knowing that they are confusion operators as to the origin of the source. The Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care (CTCCC) is a Department of Defense (DoD) committee that reviews research and makes recommendations on evidence base (Science Facts) research as to best practices. The Company Tactical Combat Casualty Care is trying to ride the CoTCCC coat tails as an official science base site instead of a business orientated/driven site. It is my opinion that this is sleazy and confuses tactical medical providers. 
    In the field of medicine science and best practices should provide our azimuth to increasing survivability. I applaud ITS Tactical for helping keep medical operators informed about the misleading aspect of the RATS tourniquet. Please keep up the great work you guys do to keep us informed.

  • Erik Sammis

    Thank you. What you just stated gets “lost” when being reiterated to military and law enforcement troops. Most migrate to the newest, brightest “toy” thinking that it is the best thing out there, totally throwing training and procedures out the window. They are “tools”….not an instant physician where you just add water.

  • Erik Sammis

    Sorry…
    but I will stick to my SOF-T Wide

  • Cameron Meier

    You can get 3 full wraps around an upper leg and it’s over 1.5 inches wide at that point.

  • Matt Mudcat Hartenberger

    Meh…I’ll stick with the CAT.

  • Collin Trevor Dye

    You’re infantry and your medic lets you use these? LOLOL.

  • Cain Namet

    I have access to a Doppler at work. (Hospital) I’ll use it Monday night and I’ll update you guys. I’m rather anxious to see the outcome. Has anyone ever tried to Doppler a rats?

  • Cain Namet

    Bruce Lee Greene Brad Myers. Want to do a video?

  • Josh Starks

    Paul Holicek III

  • Jeremy Driver

    Who cares

  • Gabriel Hearn

    It looks like a piece of shit

  • Gabriel Hearn

    Im.sorry if civillians side still plays with rubber bands that doesn’t justify another Uber band being used as a TQ. Use one the army uses. SofT or a CAT TQ. They work. Proven.

  • Jeffrey Hensley

    This was designed to separate a tactifool and his money
    http://publications.amsus.org/doi/pdf/10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00490

  • Jeffrey Hensley

    Study posted http://publications.amsus.org/doi/pdf/10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00490
    RATS is shit. Narrow bands are proven to cause more pain, more nerve and tissue damage. They require greater pressure to occlude arterial perfusion. There’s a reason why we use 4″ tqts on you on surgery!!

  • Josh Rono

    A pulse ox is not an accurate measurment. I wanna see live tissue test.

  • Nicholas A.Heyer

    This looks more like a piece of light duty climbing rope with a locking figure 9; AKA: A Toy. Not something I’d want bet my life on.

  • Brian Patterson

    Thank you for exposing this! Please continue to keep us informed.

  • Rodney Allensworth

    Rex Jacobsen things a joke brother!

  • Adam Pfeifle

    Tourniquet wars…WTF make your own, stick and cloth, BP cuff, piece of ripped clothing and a stiff rod….it’s a handful of company’s trying to talk shit about the other. Does it really matter if you have a RAT, CAT, FAT, CATT, SACK. Just buy one of them and don’t tell anybody what brand you have because some dick- hole will have a retarded opinion about it.

    • GeorgePotash

      Within reason, this. Whatever is fast and is easy to apply. No brand loyalty, I just want what works and works fast.

  • Roy Sargent

    I honestly don’t care. I carry one because it’s something that I can have on me at all times. I have soft t for my med kits and in the car as well but there is just no way to carry one on a daily basis in Street clothes where it will be easily accessible with either hand. That’s where the rat shines, I run it through my belt loops and can access it quickly with either hand. Is it as good as the others? I don’t know but I do know it will sure beat trying to improvise a tourniquet because I don’t have one on me.

  • Daniel Kampe

    Without reading it, I could look at it and just think that the patent and the approval of the CoTCCC are pending.

  • Sam McKinley

    Crevat + wooden spoon = better than that bullshit.

  • Tony Moffre

    Spencer ???

  • Josiah Anderson

    Considering that I own one of these, I find this disturbing. I had assumed “CoTCCC” in my mind when I first read the labeling.

  • Aaron Furey

    It’s a rubber band. The ending surface area is equal to whatever you want within the given limitation of the size of the limb and how much you stretch the band. It could be 1/2″ or 1/2′.

  • Aaron Furey

    So where did the RATS fall short exactly?

  • Rex Jacobsen

    The more I read about it, the more and more ridiculous it is

  • Matt Mudcat Hartenberger

    In a situation where a TQ is actually needed…I’d rather not have to take the extra time to do that when I could just pull, crank & go. Just my preference though.

  • Rodney Allensworth

    My motto is if it ain’t broke don’t fix it… I’ve been in and seen many bad situations overseas the the ole C.A.T. handed nicely!

  • Aaron Furey

    He’s not that far off guys. Bands of rubber have been used (ie SWAT TQ), and I used large BP cuffs in Orthopedic Surgery for years.

  • Aaron Furey

    What Adam said^^^^ “laughing”
    Buy what works for you. Learn it and use it.

  • Dom Lamson

    From a civilian stand point, I was initially attracted to the RATS on account of the ease of carry. However, after further reading up, perhaps it has compromised it’s original purpose for portability?

  • Rex Jacobsen

    I don’t doubt it. The C.A.T. never once has failed me in the fire and ems service.

  • Philip Lee

    I’ll keep my CAT.

  • Aaron Ramone

    Being able to apply it correctly and tight enough the first for it to stop the flow of blood at all / being stable enough to stay in position. The biggest problems were on legs. Bigger legs = less effective. Also it seemed to rarely work with self application.
    Another problem that you will run into IF you decide to use it and IF it works, is in the odd cases where you have to loosen them but keep em in place. This is a major problem because it simply does not work under these circumstances
    A combination of CAT TQ’s with occasional SOF-T’s for the bigger fellas.
    I don’t know who im talking to or why you’re asking me – if you’re a 15 year old, a line medic, one of the manufacturers…. If you have any more questions please be specific and identify your reason for interest. Im happy to help if that’s what im being asked for, but I don’t like very broad general questions to a complex problem.

  • Caleb Daniel Metzger

    I carry a RATS everyday in my pocket. They work great and are fast. I don’t have any issues with them.

  • Timothy Lynn O’Ceallaigh

    So you are ok that companies putting on endorsement they never received at the first place?
    How do you feel about bodyarmor claims they were NIJ cert when it’s actually not? Or PFD with USCG cert?

  • Timothy Lynn O’Ceallaigh

    Of course it matters, especially in civilian setting with liability issue.
    Would you be so indifferent if your body armor turn out that wasn’t approved by NIJ? or PFD was not approved by USCG?

  • Timothy Lynn O’Ceallaigh

    NAEMT’s TCCC is approved and endorsed by CoTCCC and American College of Surgeons.

  • Timothy Lynn O’Ceallaigh

    How about the TCCC logo on the top?

  • Greg Natsch

    Yep, sure are. Been following them for years. I trust NAEMT.

  • Jason Hill

    I’d love to see verified statements from current TCCC committee members endorsing RATS at ALL, let alone over or as an equal to CAT II, SOFT Wide, or SWAT-T. Please provide a link so we can all see.

  • Jared DeVault

    Ask REFactor tactical

  • Aaron Furey

    Tim, I do my own homework on armor, kit, medical, etc. and 9.5 times out of ten, those certifications ain’t up to my standards. YMMV

  • Adam Pfeifle

    Lol

  • Nathaniel Welsh

    Does it say CoTCCC? No it says TCCC it is only misleading to those who are not smart enough to realize there is a difference or those who are to lazy to care to know any better, at this point it is all conjecture anyways until a proper stud has been done by someone other than a CATs or soft-t loyalist, to ensure that the data is not tampered with

    • GeorgePotash

      Nathanial Welsh, I have to wonder about your association with this company. I was in the LE tactical world for a while, and have just started to move in those circles again. I was familiar with CoT-triple-C for years, but I’ve NEVER heard of TCCC (the company) EVER. Except for this article, I would NEVER have realized the RATS was not approved by CoTCCC, as that is the ONLY T-triple-C I’ve ever been familiar with. Mr. DiGiorgio is OBVIOUSLY trading on peoples’ familiarity (or passing familiarity) with CoTCCC. My opine? Tactical Shiestmeister. RATS looked good, but Digiorgio’s game has turned me off of it. This is good intel, and I’ll be passing it around.

  • Eric Southland

    This is exactly why this article calls it like it is. Saying that people are not smart enough or lazy because they don’t follow the industry is crazy.
    Do you follow every medical study on the food you eat?

  • Nathaniel Welsh

    I take the time to research any product I by to ensure it is of the quality I want/ can afford, therefore laziness doesn’t qualify as an excuse to me

  • Eric Graves

    I’m curious Aaron, how do you conduct testing or those products? And what standards have you established?

  • Ross Elder

    If people aren’t smart enough to know the difference or are too lazy to research a product, I don’t want them in charge of my urgent care either. Just sayin. Explaining a dislike of a product based on the stupidity of care givers doesn’t do much to instill confidence in our first responders.

  • Ken Bass

    Someone asked REFactor, they flipped out on them and berated them and asked if they required medical verification on their band aids as well.

  • Aaron Furey

    Eric, Every piece of gear has different requirements depending on intended use, budget, amount of real world data, etc. Each product would require a separate answer to your Q and could be a paragraph, or a page. Do you have a more specific Q?

  • Aaron Furey

    ITS Tactical, I always value your opinions, and I know you do your homework. However, with experience I have come to doubt most “Approvals” and find that they are usually a minimum standard at best. Since this thread has turned into somewhat of a TQ war, my f/u question would be: Do you have the specific TQ standards and testing procedures used by both parties in question? It’s not uncommon for independent companies to have higher standards than the current “authority” in any given topic or product. Your thread calls the integrity of the inventor into question, but without knowing what the testing standards were, we have no idea where his true intent lay. Remember that ALL leading approval authorities started out small at one point and all testing standards are essentially made up. IMHO this would be the only way to make an “apples to apples” statement.

  • Eric Southland

    Yep, it was obvious who ever was posting for RF that day was out of their lane when replying.
    If you sell a medical product and someone asks for data on it there should be a professional response. Problem for the RATS and all their resellers is the data doesn’t exist.

  • Anthony Cook

    Looks like a ligature to me

  • Joshua Payne

    In a hospital environment Philips healthcare cardiac monitors can use the NiBP to apply a TQ using the cuff.

  • Mike Foster

    Yeah its small and compact for EDC, but what if your unconscious and need it applied to you? Will someone be able to? This isn’t a normal TQ.

  • Tom Mason

    Just to the right of your belt buckle on a horizontal carrier designed for this purpose. Works pretty good for a low viz setup.

  • Hooch Jones

    Why does this feel like a weaver vs isosceles argument lol.

  • Matthew Kinney

    John-Paul Gorcyca

  • Roy Sargent

    The issue is more at work then not. We aren’t permitted to visibly carry a tourniquet (I know it’s backwards and it isn’t right but policy is policy) so this under the belt is just about the only option to have one on me that is readily accessible with either hand.

  • Steven Roshto Jr.

    Eric Reineke

  • Eric Reineke

    I’ve seen this. I like the rats tourniquet. But I do agree it is misleading.

  • Garrett Goodwin

    So you’ve actually used RATS in a field environment and applied it to PT’s ?… How many times ? What where the injuries ? Ect ….

  • Eric Reineke

    The tccc os also now a NAREMT program last I checked.

  • Wayne LeKnux

    Jeffrey Hensley I read your article, and I think you need to read it too. If anything it is an article in favor of the RATS due to its elastic nature. The RATS width is made up by multiple wraps. Um … bad example

  • Wayne LeKnux

    Pitre, if you are interested in your brother why do you push a TQ that has a 10% failure in combat? ( https://www.naemt.org/docs/default-source/phtls-tccc/10-29-14-tccc-updates/cotccc-meeting-minutes-1402-final.pdf?sfvrsn=2 ) that was Ranger Regiment 2014, and has serious effectiveness issues when used under stress ( http://publications.amsus.org/doi/pdf/10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00311 ) or has ranked low in tests by its evaluators? ( http://www.gohandh.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/TQKREPT2007.pdf) you sound like a smart guy … there are multiple examples and studies of the failure of the CAT and SOF-T by doing just a cursory search. Think twice before disparaging another TQ (or any other thing) that you have never actually trained with your self.

  • Wayne LeKnux

    Simon-Luc Lavoie you need to go to the site and see the multiple testimonies by MDs that have confirmed …. check your facts

  • Wayne LeKnux

    Survivor Med, by you stating that you are teaching TCCC you are guilty of the same marketing you are bashing RATS over. If you are not currently in the military or a contractor to the military and CURRENT you are not qualified to teach TCCC. SO you stating that you hold TCCC classes is actually a marketing ploy that is illegal by way of copy write infringement. Like it or not we live in a nation of laws.

  • Wayne LeKnux

    Your article clearly states you have never touched a RATS much less tested one

  • Wayne LeKnux

    Eric Southland once again, saying you are TCCC without the endorsement of the copy write and trade mark holder is a crime and I am sure RATS does not want to end up in a litigation case. We are a country of laws and just because you dont like the law does not mean that it is not enforceable. In my opinion RATS is doing the right thing by following the USPTM office’s ruling.

  • Wayne LeKnux

    Read the endorsements on RATS page

  • Wayne LeKnux

    Jeffrey Hensley the article you posted actually makes a great case for the RATS due to its elastic nature ….

  • Wayne LeKnux
  • Wayne LeKnux

    Its sounds like you have used them incorrectly which is a short fall of the RATs, it is very easy to assume what the proper way is when actually it is not. I would want to confirm that you used the three finger loop and formed a truckers hitch. If you did, it would preclude the issues that you discussed above (tightness and stability in position)

  • Wayne LeKnux

    Eric Southland again I am in the position to dispute what you say, “no position to mislead” …. you advocate the CAT but Ranger Regiment reported a 10% failure in combat https://www.naemt.org/docs/default-source/phtls-tccc/10-29-14-tccc-updates/cotccc-meeting-minutes-1402-final.pdf?sfvrsn=2

  • Wayne LeKnux

    SurvivorMed you are mistaken they are proven on the battlefield, you should do some research and you can find multiple highly experienced medics from Afghanistan and Iraq who have used them. Check you facts

  • Wayne LeKnux

    SWAT-T Iam in agreement with you, elastic tourniquets are the future http://publications.amsus.org/doi/pdf/10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00490 for a variety of reasons. You have a great product.

  • Wayne LeKnux
  • Aaron Furey

    Garrett, i have extensive experience in EMS and surgery. I prefer the RATS for my personal kit and have multiple. YMMV
    Real world testing of a TQ is not difficult. Elevate limb, squeeze out blood, apply TQ, check for pulses and skin color.

  • Jim Stutzman

    Lot of people here that have no idea what they’re talking about. Shocking.

  • Philip Lee

    The CAT is DOD approved…by regs the only one issued, and combat proven…that aside, if I don’t have my IFAK I’ll use what I have available to stop bleeding…

  • Jeffrey Hensley

    Nope try again!!! The elastic nature is merely one characteristic of a tqt! RATS IS TOO NARROW AND TOO SHORT.
    Its crap!!! Its claims re: TCCC is crap I know the difference between TCCC and CoTCCC.

  • Jason Crist

    Paging Dr. Knopp, Director of Trauma Services Dr. J.B. Knopp , please throw this entire thread off with some actual fucking expert testimony.

  • J.B. Knopp

    This entire thread as well as the subsequent threads outside this thread is making my head hurt. LOTS of people talking WAY outside their “lane”. Just finished a busy night shift. Will process this and try to reply later.

  • Sean Fisher

    Brent Schoenfeldt

  • Eric Southland

    Wayne, just because you can does not mean you should. Anyone with any sense and see what RATS is up to.

  • Brent Schoenfeldt

    Sean Fisher we will talk off line!

  • Jeffrey Hensley

    Wayne nice try to spin it and attacking my reading comprehension that’s real intelligent. You fail to list any specific fact extrapolated from the study to support your assertion.
    Same as before the elastic nature is one characteristic…repeated wraps don’t make it “wider” and change the occlusion / tissue pressures. It’s too short and too narrow!
    And docs are paid endorsements!!! Not clinically objective studies.

  • Joseph Behm

    ^Really? Liking your own comment? Lol

  • Pappa Delta

    Having never used a tq. I do carry one, a swatt, on duty, and have trained with the cat during my tccc mass casualty training. I carry the swatt because it has multiple users and is fairly easy to apply. As far as a test on what works best I saw a you tube of a doctor testing the swatt. He used a Doppler on his wrist. He applied the swatt and placed the Doppler on his wrist before and after the application. Pulse before and no pulse after. Easy test. Apply the tq and take your pulse. As far as one company saying they are approved by whatever body, in the end it is subjective and based on best practices and technology at the time and is always subject to change. I do agree that the average consumer could be confused by the claim, but the educated should know better.

  • abruno415

    i think its a cool idea, my only concern is will it work over my uniform? i will buy one and try it out and see how it goes. as far as what the article is talking about, yes i agree with you, that is some shade ass shit and they knew it when they did it. it is fraud and if you had half a brain you would see it as well.

  • puma

    I’ve messed with one and it feels more like a movie prop than something I’d roll out the gate with strapped to my kit. Seems to be a very shady business practice, which is no surprise you can find it double price at refactortactical.com.

  • Bzil Maf

    Not even and original idea. Bungees in one form or another have been used for this for decades going back to Vietnam. More recently the adjustable bungees with plastic hooks. Even his “three finger loop” is based on the hooking of the above mentioned tie downs. I’ve seen bicycle tubes carried and used. To use the term is misleading and potentially negligent without a disclaimer.

Do you have what you need to prevail?

Shop the ITS Store for exclusive merchandise, equipment and hard to find tactical gear.

Do you have what you need to prevail? Tap the button below to see what you’re missing.