From AEDs to Bleeding Control

Disclosure: This paper is authored and funded by Golden Hour Medical, which manufactures a hemorrhage-control device discussed in the final sections. The epidemiology and intervention evidence in Sections 1–5 is drawn from independent, peer-reviewed sources cited throughout.

Executive Summary

Among deaths after injury, uncontrolled bleeding represents one of the largest preventable causes. Hemorrhage accounts for up to 40% of trauma mortality, and a third to more than half of those deaths occur before the patient reaches a hospital. Severe blood loss can be fatal in under five minutes — faster than any emergency medical system can reliably arrive. The only responder consistently present within that window is the person already at the scene.

The evidence supporting immediate intervention is strong. In a landmark military study, casualties who required a tourniquet and did not receive one had a 0% survival rate, while those who received one survived 87% of the time. Civilian data point in the same direction: prehospital tourniquet use has been independently associated with improved survival among patients with peripheral vascular injuries. The intervention is well established. The remaining question is why the public is still not reliably trained or equipped to deliver it.

The gap is not apathy. In a national survey, 98% of respondents said they would help a family member with a bleeding leg wound, but only 36% said they would apply a tourniquet. Training can close that gap quickly, yet the skill decays within months. An equally important finding is that the device itself — not training alone — can substantially influence whether an ordinary person succeeds: reported correct-application rates range from roughly 12% to 92%, depending on the device used.

Public-access cardiac response offers a useful precedent. CPR and automated external defibrillators (AEDs) improved the response to sudden cardiac arrest by combining bystander action, accessible and intuitive devices, and standardized training. Bleeding control now has a substantial evidence base, but it does not yet have comparable public-access infrastructure. The American College of Surgeons has described Stop the Bleed as “the CPR of bleeding.”

This paper argues that the unmet need is a point-of-injury tourniquet engineered to perform reliably in untrained or under-trained hands, under stress, even after learned skills have faded — the AED principle applied to hemorrhage. The closing sections describe AutoTQ, a device designed around that requirement; the data behind it, including 100% task completion among 36 first-time users and, in an IRB-reviewed study, Doppler-verified arterial occlusion at lower pressures than those reported for some manual devices; the limitations of that evidence; and the independent head-to-head trial Golden Hour Medical is preparing to conduct.

The argument is not simply to buy a product. It is that bleeding control deserves the same public-access attention given to CPR and AEDs, and that new tools may help make that model practical.

1. The Problem

Unintentional injury has been the leading cause of death for Americans ages 1 through 44 for more than three decades. That headline, which also counts drug poisonings, obscures a more useful fact: many people who die after traumatic injury do not die from unsurvivable wounds. They die from potentially survivable injuries because effective care did not arrive in time.

Uncontrolled bleeding is among the most important preventable causes. Hemorrhage is responsible for up to 40% of trauma mortality, and between 33% and 56% of those deaths occur before the patient reaches a hospital. It is the second-leading cause of trauma death overall, behind central nervous system injury. The practical difference is important: severe brain injury offers few options at the point of injury, while some forms of life-threatening bleeding can be controlled by a bystander with the right tool and timely action.

The preventability of traumatic death is well documented. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that as many as 20% of trauma deaths are potentially preventable with optimal care and identified the prehospital setting as the greatest opportunity to save lives. A single-year review of trauma deaths from hemorrhage in one metropolitan area judged 45% potentially preventable; 36% of those preventable deaths occurred before the patient reached a hospital. In a 12-center cohort of trauma patients with severe bleeding, 81% of those who died within 24 hours died of exsanguination. Across independent datasets, the pattern is consistent: the prehospital interval is critical.

The clock

This is a point-of-injury problem because of basic physiology. A person with life-threatening hemorrhage can lose a critical volume of blood in under five minutes — the interval trauma clinicians often describe as the “platinum five minutes.” The chair of the Hartford Consensus summarized the urgency plainly: bleeding must be stopped within roughly five to ten minutes, or the victim may die. The average adult body holds only about five liters of blood. Severe hemorrhage is therefore a countdown, not a slow decline.

No emergency medical system can reliably arrive before that countdown expires in every case. The national median EMS response is about seven minutes from the 911 call to arrival on scene, and about 13 minutes in rural areas. In the severe-injury cohort cited above, patients waited a median of six minutes for responders to arrive and a median of 57 minutes to reach definitive care; some waited as long as 232 minutes. A wound capable of causing death within minutes can therefore outrun even a well-functioning response system.

The practical conclusion

The only responder reliably present during the first few minutes is the person already at the scene. That fact reframes the problem. Uncontrolled hemorrhage is not only a question of ambulances, surgeons, or trauma centers; it is also a gap in what happens before any of them arrive. If a meaningful share of these deaths is preventable and the available responder is an ordinary bystander, the central question becomes clear: what would it take to help that person stop the bleeding in time? The rest of this paper addresses that question.

2. The Evidence That Intervention Works

The civilian movement to teach and equip the public drew heavily from military experience, where hemorrhage control was tested at scale under exceptionally demanding conditions. That evidence established the importance of acting before a casualty reaches definitive care.

The military evidence

A review of 4,596 combat fatalities found that 87.3% of deaths occurred before the casualty reached a surgeon and that, among deaths judged potentially survivable, 90.9% involved hemorrhage. The implication was clear: many potentially survivable deaths were occurring in the prehospital window because of uncontrolled bleeding.

The response included issuing effective tourniquets broadly to service members, not only to medics. In one landmark study, casualties who were indicated for a tourniquet but received none had a 0% survival rate. Those who received a tourniquet survived 87% of the time.

Timing was decisive. Tourniquet application before the onset of shock was associated with roughly 90% survival, compared with about 10% when application occurred after shock. Mortality was 11% when the tourniquet was applied in the prehospital setting, versus 24% when application was delayed until the emergency department. Longstanding concerns that tourniquets would routinely cause limb loss were not supported in the landmark study: no limbs were lost because of tourniquet use, and transient nerve palsy occurred in 1.7% of cases.

Battlefield survivability improved substantially during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Improvements in prehospital hemorrhage control, including wider tourniquet use, were among the major contributors, and tourniquets have been credited with saving an estimated 1,000 to 2,000 lives.

Does it translate?

Civilian injury patterns differ, but the underlying physiology is the same, and civilian findings generally align with the military evidence. Prehospital tourniquet application has been independently associated with roughly six times higher odds of survival among patients with peripheral vascular injuries. In penetrating extremity trauma, prehospital tourniquet use was associated with fewer transfusions and fewer limb complications, without an increase in major complications. One study captured the importance of timing in its title: “The trauma center is too late.”

Medical-examiner reviews have estimated that about 235 deaths a year from penetrating wounds confined to a limb might have been prevented with a tourniquet, and that as many as 480 deaths a year from extremity bleeding may be potentially survivable. Not every fatal bleed is accessible to a layperson: in a civilian massive-transfusion cohort, bleeding originated from the abdomen (44%), chest (20%), limb or extremity (18%), and pelvis (11%). Still, a meaningful share occurs in compressible locations that a tourniquet or direct pressure can address.

Roughly one-third of patients in that massive-transfusion cohort required at least one prehospital intervention. The question is therefore no longer whether early hemorrhage control can work. The civilian challenge is whether the public is trained, equipped, and able to deliver it when needed.

3. The Gap Between Willing and Able

If early intervention works and the available first responder is often a bystander, the next question is whether the public is prepared to act. The evidence points to a specific and addressable gap.

The public is willing. It is not consistently equipped or prepared.

In the Hartford Consensus national survey, 98% of respondents said they would be willing to attempt bleeding control on a family member with a leg wound. Only 36% said they would apply a tourniquet.

That difference between willingness and capability is central to the public-access problem. It points to an access-and-capability gap rather than an apathy gap. The same survey found 93% support for placing bleeding-control kits in public places. Respondents’ most common worries were causing pain or further injury (65%), catching a disease (61%), and being responsible for a bad outcome (61%). Concerns like these can be reduced by placing a usable tool within reach and pairing it with brief, confidence-building instruction.

Training works quickly

Instruction can be highly effective. A 2024 systematic review of 35 Stop the Bleed studies found statistically significant improvements in hemorrhage-control knowledge or tourniquet-application skill in 26 studies and improved willingness or confidence in 22. In a randomized trial, 88% of participants who took a brief course applied a tourniquet correctly, compared with 16% of those given no instruction. Another study found willingness to use a tourniquet in a real emergency rose from 64% to 96% after a short course.

But the skill decays

Tourniquet skill is perishable. In one trial, correct application fell from 88% immediately after training to 55% three to nine months later. A separate study found scores falling from 100% to 69% at six months; at that point, 39% of participants could not apply a tourniquet at all, and 26% could not control life-threatening bleeding. Across six studies that retested learners one to nine months after training, knowledge retention ranged from 39% to 72%. Unlike CPR, which generally follows a two-year recertification cycle, bleeding-control training has no universal skill-maintenance requirement.

This is a variable that any real-world program must address. Emergencies do not arrive on the day of the class. They may occur months or years later, when training has faded and stress has further degraded fine motor control and sequential thinking. A solution that depends on perfect recall of a multi-step manual technique is vulnerable at exactly the moment when performance matters most.

The overlooked variable: the device itself

When researchers compared how well laypeople applied different tourniquets, performance varied sharply by device. A well-designed windlass device was applied correctly 92% of the time, while other commercial designs ranged from 12% to 69%. Improvised tourniquets succeeded about one-third of the time. Every participant had been trained on the windlass design that scored highest, which explains part of the gap, but the result still shows how strongly the device in a layperson’s hands, and their familiarity with it, shape the outcome. The literature therefore supports intuitive design and just-in-time instructions to mitigate skill decay.

Training remains essential and should always be provided. However, the moment that determines survival may belong to a stressed bystander with incomplete recall. Public-access design should therefore reduce the amount of remembered technique required for successful use.

4. The Precedent: How CPR and the AED Addressed a Similar Problem

Sudden cardiac arrest presents a similar public-response challenge: it is time-critical, often occurs before professionals arrive, and can be influenced by immediate bystander action. Over several decades, CPR training and public-access AEDs created a scalable model for responding to that problem.

The cardiac-arrest model has three core elements: bystander action, an accessible and deliberately intuitive device, and standardized public training. Together, these interventions have materially improved survival. Bystander CPR can double or triple the chance of surviving an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Overall survival is about 10%, but about one in three when a bystander witnesses the arrest and the heart is in a shockable rhythm; in selected athletic settings with on-site AEDs and trained responders, survival has been reported as high as 89%. The same minutes-matter principle governs both emergencies: in a witnessed arrest with a shockable rhythm and no CPR, survival falls by roughly 7% to 10% for every minute without defibrillation, while hemorrhage becomes progressively less survivable with continued blood loss.

The AED was engineered for the untrained user

The most relevant feature of the AED model is that usability was designed into the device itself. AEDs are deliberately simple and guide a frightened rescuer through the process with plain graphics and voice prompts. They are designed on the assumption that the person holding the device may be untrained, under-trained, or highly stressed. That assumption is central to effective public-access design.

Even so, a bystander uses an AED in only about one in eight cardiac arrests that happen in public places. That figure is a reminder that a device cannot help if it is not accessible, recognizable, and easy to use under stress. Placement and usability are as important as the underlying technology.

The adoption gap

Bleeding control today sits at an earlier stage of public adoption than CPR. The American Heart Association trains more than 22 million people in CPR each year. Stop the Bleed, by contrast, estimates that about 10 million people worldwide have been trained in total since the program began. CPR is a high-school graduation requirement in 40 states and the District of Columbia; bleeding-control education is not yet comparably widespread. The infrastructure that made CPR ubiquitous — mandates, standardized curricula, and publicly accessible devices — is only beginning to develop for hemorrhage control.

The institutions closest to this issue have already adopted the analogy. The American College of Surgeons describes Stop the Bleed as “the CPR of bleeding,” and its leadership has stated that bleeding-control training should become as ubiquitous as CPR. The question is what infrastructure, device design, training, and placement will be required to move from that aspiration to consistent public readiness.

5. What the Solution Must Be

Taken together, the evidence in the preceding sections points to a clear set of requirements for a public-access bleeding-control solution. These are not aspirational features; each responds to a documented failure mode. Before considering any specific device, it is useful to state the performance requirements implied by the evidence.

1. It must work in untrained or under-trained hands. The person who uses it may be a bystander whose training, if any, has faded. The device should reduce reliance on memory for correct placement and adequate pressure. The wide 12%-to-92% spread in reported layperson success shows that design can materially affect performance.

2. It must succeed under stress. Stress can degrade fine motor control and sequential reasoning. A public-access device should guide the user in real time, as an AED does, rather than assume calm recall of a manual technique.

3. It must be fast. The relevant window is measured in minutes. Every second from recognition to effective occlusion matters, so the design should minimize unnecessary steps.

4. It must apply controlled, adequate pressure. Insufficient pressure can fail to occlude arterial flow, while excessive or uneven force can increase the risk of nerve and tissue injury. Consistency therefore matters.

5. It must be reliably accessible and ready. A device can save lives only if it is located where injuries may occur and is ready for immediate use. Placement, visibility, maintenance, and readiness are therefore part of the public-access system, not afterthoughts.

6. It must be paired with training, never positioned as a replacement for it. Training works and should be provided and reinforced. The goal is to combine training with a device engineered to remain usable even when learned skills have faded.

Taken together, these requirements describe an AED-like model for hemorrhage control: accessible, intuitive, fast, and designed to support a stressed user under demanding conditions.

6. Engineering the Requirement: AutoTQ

AutoTQ, developed by Golden Hour Medical, is an FDA-registered automated pneumatic tourniquet designed around those requirements. It reduces the task of controlling a life-threatening extremity bleed to cuff placement and button activation, with audio and visual instructions guiding the user in real time. The design is intended to reduce two common layperson failure modes — incorrect placement and insufficient tightening — for a user who may be untrained, frightened, or out of practice. Two studies, summarized below with their limitations, evaluate whether the design achieves those goals.

Usability: can a first-time user actually do it?

In a usability evaluation run at a professional conference, 36 first-time users with no prior exposure to AutoTQ received a standardized verbal demonstration lasting less than 30 seconds and were then asked to apply the device to a live human volunteer. All 36 placed and activated it correctly, the study’s endpoint, with a mean application time of 15.1 seconds. Thirty-three participants (92%) completed the task without instruction beyond the demonstration; the remaining three needed brief verbal cues.

These results support the device’s usability objective, but they should not be treated as a direct comparison with manual tourniquets. Published layperson studies of windlass devices have reported substantially lower success under different protocols, populations, and testing conditions. A true device-to-device comparison requires the same users under the same study design.

Performance: does it stop the bleeding?

A separate performance study, conducted under an institutional review board protocol, measured arterial occlusion objectively. Twenty-seven healthy adults underwent AutoTQ application to both the upper arm and thigh — 54 applications in total — with handheld Doppler ultrasound confirming cessation of distal arterial blood flow. Complete occlusion was achieved in all 54 applications. Mean time to occlusion was 5.1 seconds at the arm and 20.0 seconds at the thigh.

Mean applied pressures were approximately 289 mmHg at the arm and 293 mmHg at the thigh. Those values are well below the peak pressures of up to 700 mmHg measured under some narrow non-pneumatic tourniquets. The study therefore demonstrates reliable occlusion in healthy limbs using controlled, sensor-regulated pressure.

The evidence, side by side

Placed alongside published layperson data on manual tourniquets, the available evidence can be organized around the requirements identified in Section 5. These figures come from separate studies and should not be read as a head-to-head trial.

Windlass figures are drawn from independent layperson and pressure studies (refs. 11, 20, 21); AutoTQ figures are drawn from the usability and IRB occlusion studies (ref. 19). This is a comparison across separate studies, not a single controlled head-to-head trial.

Across these domains, the available data are consistent with AutoTQ’s design goals: high first-time task completion, real-time guidance, controlled pressure, and rapid application. However, the evidence does not yet establish superiority over a standard windlass tourniquet because the devices have not been tested head to head under the same protocol.

The limitations, stated plainly

Credible evidence should define its own boundaries. Both AutoTQ studies used small samples — 36 and 27 participants — of healthy volunteers in controlled settings rather than injured patients in the field. Real-world validation is therefore an important next step. The occlusion study measured arterial cessation in healthy limbs, an appropriate physiological surrogate for extremity hemorrhage control but still a surrogate for treatment of an actual traumatic bleed.

Most importantly, the comparison that would most directly test the device’s advantage — a head-to-head trial of AutoTQ against a standard windlass tourniquet, using the same untrained participants under the same protocol — has not yet been published. Comparing AutoTQ’s first-time usability data with separate windlass-failure literature is informative, but it remains an inference across studies rather than a controlled comparison.

Golden Hour Medical is preparing the more definitive next experiment: an independent, pre-registered head-to-head study in which untrained laypeople apply both devices. The planned outcomes include speed, correct application, and retention over time without retraining. The purpose is to test the comparative conclusion directly rather than assume it.

How the device meets the specification

Mapped against the requirements in Section 5, the design addresses each point directly. It is intended for untrained or under-trained hands, using simple button activation and real-time audio-visual guidance to supply steps the user’s memory may not. It is designed for stressful conditions by guiding rather than assuming recall. It is fast, with a mean application time of 15.1 seconds in the usability study. It delivers controlled, sensor-regulated pressure rather than the variable force of a hand-tightened windlass. It is designed for readiness, with a two-year battery shelf life and optional automated Wi-Fi monitoring that reports unit status. Training is included and is positioned as a complement to the device, not a substitute for it. The overall design goal is to preserve usability even after learned skills have faded.

7. Where It Goes First

A device can save lives only where it is accessible. An emerging public-access strategy is to co-locate bleeding-control equipment with AEDs in airports, stadiums, schools, transit hubs, convention centers, and other high-traffic settings. Industrial environments also merit attention because machinery, tools, vehicles, and material-handling operations can produce severe lacerations, crush injuries, and extremity trauma.

Employers covered by federal OSHA reported 2,426 amputations in 2024 alone, 1,348 of them in manufacturing. In 2023 there were 5,283 fatal workplace injuries, and private-industry employers recorded about 2.4 million nonfatal injuries, nearly 950,000 of them serious enough to cost days away from work. Cuts, lacerations, and punctures rank among the common injury types in manufacturing, while falls and struck-by incidents are major sources of severe injury in construction.

Some of these incidents occur on remote sites, large plant floors, or other locations where professional medical care may not be immediately at hand. In those settings, the first few minutes can determine whether an otherwise survivable extremity injury becomes fatal.

Many organizations have already invested in AEDs and understand the logic of visible, standardized emergency equipment. Bleeding-control equipment can extend that familiar model: the fire extinguisher, the AED, and a dedicated hemorrhage-control device placed together or nearby. For schools and public venues, the same co-location logic can build on an infrastructure that administrators and the public already recognize.

8. Conclusion: The Window Is Open

The argument of this paper rests on convergence, not on any single statistic. Battlefield studies, civilian trauma registries, EMS research, randomized layperson trials, and national preparedness surveys repeatedly point to the same practical conclusions: uncontrolled bleeding is a major preventable cause of death after injury; some fatal hemorrhage occurs within minutes, before professional help can arrive; early intervention can materially improve survival; the public is willing to help but is not consistently trained or equipped; and device design can strongly influence whether a layperson succeeds.

Sudden cardiac arrest provides a useful precedent. CPR and public-access AED programs showed that bystander action, intuitive devices, standardized training, and deliberate placement can improve outcomes at scale. Bleeding control has developed a substantial evidence base, but it does not yet have comparable public-access infrastructure: equipment on the wall, training embedded in institutions, routine maintenance, and a shared expectation that an ordinary person can act before professionals arrive.

The case for action is timely. The evidence base has matured substantially. The public-response model is familiar. Millions of people have been trained, legislation is expanding, and a national campaign is established, yet bleeding-control readiness still reaches only a fraction of the population reached by CPR. A major unresolved challenge is accessibility: placing effective equipment close enough to the injury, and making it usable enough, that a bystander can intervene before the critical window closes.

The policy and preparedness implication is straightforward: treat point-of-injury hemorrhage control as a survivable emergency that may initially belong to the person already at the scene. Support that person with training, accessible equipment, and devices engineered for reliable use under stress. Whether the next step is funding, legislation, workplace deployment, school preparedness, or public-venue placement, the objective is the same — shorten the time from injury to effective bleeding control.

Many of these deaths are potentially preventable. The first responder may already be present. The remaining challenge is to put the right training and the right tool within reach before time runs out.

Selected References

Figures in this paper are drawn from the peer-reviewed and institutional sources below. Direct quotation is limited to short attributed phrases. Totals that change over time, such as cumulative Stop the Bleed training figures, are stated as of October 2026.

[1] Kauvar DS, Lefering R, Wade CE. Impact of hemorrhage on trauma outcome. J Trauma. 2006;60(6):S3–S11.

[2] Kauvar DS, Wade CE. The epidemiology and modern management of traumatic hemorrhage: US and international perspectives. Critical Care. 2005;9(Suppl 5):S1–S9.

[3] Levy MJ, et al. A framework for the design and implementation of Stop the Bleed and public access trauma equipment programs. JACEP Open. 2022;3:e12833.

[4] Jones AR, et al. Epidemiology of trauma-related hemorrhage and time to definitive care across North America: making the case for bleeding control education. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2023;38(6):780–783.

[5] Consunji R, et al. Can “Stop the Bleed” training courses for laypersons improve hemorrhage control knowledge, skills, and attitudes? A systematic review. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2024;50:2775–2798.

[6] Zhao KL, et al. Learners’ perspectives on Stop the Bleed: a course to improve survival during mass casualty events. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2019;4(1):e000331.

[7] Goolsby C, et al. Stop the Bleed Education Consortium: education program content and delivery recommendations. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018;84(1):205–210.

[8] Eastridge BJ, et al. Death on the battlefield (2001–2011). J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73(6 Suppl 5):S431–S437.

[9] Kragh JF, et al. Survival with emergency tourniquet use to stop bleeding in major limb trauma. Ann Surg. 2009;249(1):1–7.

[10] McCarty JC, et al. Effectiveness of the ACS Bleeding Control Basic training among laypeople applying different tourniquet types: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(10):923–929.

[11] Goralnick E, et al. Effectiveness of instructional interventions for hemorrhage control readiness for laypersons in the Public Access and Tourniquet Training Study (PATTS): a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(9):791–799.

[12] Weinman S. Retention of tourniquet application skills following participation in a bleeding control course. J Emerg Nurs. 2020;46(2):154–162.

[13] Jacobs LM, Burns KJ, et al. The Hartford Consensus: a national survey of the public regarding bleeding control. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222(5):948–955.

[14] Scerbo MH, et al. The trauma center is too late: major limb trauma without a pre-hospital tourniquet has increased death from hemorrhagic shock. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;83(6):1165–1172.

[15] Teixeira PGR, et al. Civilian prehospital tourniquet use is associated with improved survival in patients with peripheral vascular injury. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;226(5):769–776.

[16] Smith AA, et al. Prehospital tourniquet use in penetrating extremity trauma: decreased blood transfusions and limb complications. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019;86(1):43–51.

[17] Mell HK, Mumma SN, et al. Emergency medical services response times in rural, suburban, and urban areas. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(10):983–984.

[18] Kalkwarf KJ, et al. Bleeding to death in a big city. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020;89(4):716–722.

[19] Herbst H, Willis D. Under pressure: AutoTQ is designed for intuitive, rapid hemorrhage control. IEEE Pulse. Nov/Dec 2025.

[20] McEwen JA, Casey V. Measurement of hazardous pressure levels and gradients produced on human limbs by non-pneumatic tourniquets. Proceedings of the Canadian Medical and Biological Engineering Society (CMBES). 2009;32.

[21] Ross EM, et al. The tourniquet gap: a pilot study of the intuitive placement of three tourniquet types by laypersons. J Emerg Med. 2018;54(3):307–314.

[22] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A National Trauma Care System: Integrating Military and Civilian Trauma Systems to Achieve Zero Preventable Deaths After Injury. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2016.

[23] American College of Surgeons. “STOP THE BLEED Is the ‘CPR of Bleeding’” (May 15, 2023); “More Than 5 Million People Are Now Empowered to Control Bleeding” (July 7, 2025). STOP THE BLEED® program. “A New Era for STOP THE BLEED.” September 30, 2026. dodstopthebleed.org.

[24] CDC/NCHS mortality data and WISQARS.

[25] Butler FK. Military history of increasing survival: the U.S. military experience with tourniquets and hemostatic dressings in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. J Spec Oper Med. 2015;15(4):149–152.

[26] Tjardes T, Luecking M. The platinum 5 min in TCCC: analysis of junctional and extremity hemorrhage scenarios with a mathematical model. Mil Med. 2018;183(5-6):e207–e215.

[27] Bonk C, et al. Saving lives with tourniquets: a review of penetrating injury medical examiner cases. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2020;24(4):494–499.

[28] Goolsby C, et al. Post-mortem evaluation of potentially survivable hemorrhagic death in a civilian population. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;227(5):502–506.

[29] Ross EM, et al. Stop the Bleed: the effect of hemorrhage control education on laypersons’ willingness to respond during a traumatic medical emergency. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(2):127–132.

[30] Drezner JA, et al. Outcomes from sudden cardiac arrest in US high schools: a 2-year prospective study from the National Registry for AED Use in Sports. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(18):1179–1183.

[31] American Heart Association. CPR Facts and Stats (cpr.heart.org); Part 5: Electrical therapies. Circulation. 2005;112(24 Suppl):IV-35–IV-46; CPR in Schools, Master List of States with CPR Law (August 2025).

[32] Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES). 2024 Data Highlights. May 2025. mycares.net.

[33] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses, 2023 (November 8, 2024); Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 2023.

[34] Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2024 Annual Report of Severe Injuries Reported by Employers Covered by Federal OSHA. osha.gov.