Advancing Field Suction Capability: Evaluation of the SCEPTRE Device for Combat and Prehospital Trauma Care

Introduction: : Airway obstruction is a leading cause of preventable battlefield death; it accounts for nearly 10% of combat fatalities. Rapid removal of fluids such as blood, vomit, and debris is essential for airway management in both military and civilian emergency settings. However, current suction devices present trade-offs: Battery-powered models typically provide sufficient suction flow but are often too heavy or bulky for field use, while manual devices are more portable but are frequently unreliable and difficult to operate effectively in high-stress environments. This gap limits the tools available to frontline responders.
SCEPTRE (Suction Capability for Emergencies – Portable Technology for Responders) was developed to meet this operational need. The device is compact, lightweight, and engineered for durability; it is capable of withstanding drops and harsh use in austere conditions. SCEPTRE delivers immediate suction without requiring vacuum buildup and functions reliably even when mispositioned; such features are essential in situations where controlled setup is not possible. Its design is tailored to combat trauma care, with the versatility to support multiple medical indications, including airway clearance and hemorrhage control. The streamlined form and reliable performance aim to simplify equipment loadout and enable rapid response in confined or high-pressure environments.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the liquid evacuation performance of SCEPTRE using a standardized test protocol. Fluid flow rate performance was compared between SCEPTRE and two widely used suction devices—the SSCOR Quickdraw and Laerdal V-VAC—and across three fluid types: distilled water, a blood simulant, and a vomit simulant.

Materials and

Methods: : SCEPTRE’s liquid evacuation performance was evaluated through structured benchtop testing in comparison with two commercially available suction devices: the SSCOR Quickdraw (battery-powered) and the Laerdal V-VAC (manually operated). Devices were selected based on their use in prehospital and combat medical settings and compliance with weight criteria ( < 1.5 kg). The testing protocol was designed to simulate battlefield-relevant conditions using a standardized setup.
Each device was tested using its own manufacturer-supplied tubing. Liquid flow rate was assessed across three fluid types: distilled water, a blood simulant (276 mL glycerol in 1224 mL distilled water), and a vomit simulant (10 g xanthan gum and 100 g of 1 mm glass beads in 1 L distilled water). These fluids represented a range of viscosities and particulate loads relevant to trauma care. Four repeated trials were performed for each fluid type and device.
A load cell (Omega LC62SP-6KG) was used to measure real-time changes in fluid mass as it was drawn into a collection container. Signals were amplified using a signal conditioner (Omega model DRF-LC-24VDC-10MV-0/10) and recorded through a National Instruments 9221 DAQ system. Voltage readings were processed and converted into mass and flow rate data using custom MATLAB scripts.
In addition to flow rate measurements, flow-to-weight and flow-to-volume ratios were calculated for each device to assess suction efficiency. Statistical analysis was conducted using a two-way ANOVA to assess the effects of device and fluid type on flow rate, followed by Tukey’s post-hoc test (α = 0.05) to determine specific group differences.

Results, Conclusions, and Discussions::

Results: SCEPTRE maintained low variability in low rates across all fluids: 1.50 ± 0.04 L/min (water), 1.51 ± 0.03 L/min (blood), and 0.48 ± 0.03 L/min (vomit). It significantly outperformed VVAC Low in vomit evacuation (p < 0.001) but showed no significant differences in flow rate for water (p = 0.886) or blood (p = 1.00).
SSCOR Quickdraw achieved the highest flow rates: 5.46 ± 0.07 L/min (water), 5.21 ± 0.26 L/min (blood), and 1.79 ± 0.20 L/min (vomit), with vomit performance significantly higher than all other devices (p < 0.001). Laerdal VVAC—tested in high and low power modes—reached 2.14 ± 0.25 L/min (water), 2.37 ± 0.26 L/min (blood), and 1.16 ± 0.06 L/min (vomit) at high power, and 1.62 ± 0.07 L/min, 1.56 ± 0.30 L/min, and 0.46 ± 0.10 L/min at low power.
A two-way ANOVA revealed significant effects of both device type (p < 0.0001) and fluid type (p < 0.0001) on liquid flow rate. A significant interaction was also observed (p < 0.0001), indicating that performance varied by device and fluid.
Fluid comparisons showed no difference between blood and water (p = 0.945), but vomit flow was significantly lower than both (p < 0.001). When normalized for device weight and volume, respectively, SCEPTRE had the highest efficiency: 7.48 L/min/kg and 7.77 × 10⁻³ L/min/cm³. For comparison, VVAC reached 9.01 L/min/kg and 8.32 × 10⁻⁴ L/min/cm³, and SSCOR 4.64 L/min/kg and 1.67 × 10⁻³ L/min/cm³. These findings highlight SCEPTRE’s efficiency relative to its compact size and weight.

Discussion: Although SSCOR and VVAC achieved higher flow rates, their size and weight limit use in field settings. SCEPTRE demonstrated reliable performance with low variability and superior efficiency relative to its compact form factor, particularly in evacuating viscous fluids like vomit. While not matching the absolute flow rate of larger devices, SCEPTRE delivered comparable performance in key scenarios with significantly greater portability.

Conclusion: SCEPTRE achieved effective and reliable liquid evacuation across multiple fluid types. With the highest flow rate per unit volume, SCEPTRE represents a practical, deployable solution for airway and fluid management in prehospital and military medical care.

Acknowledgements and/or References (Optional):: This work was supported by a Phase I SBIR award through the United States Air Force AFWERX Program (Contract number: FA864924P0766).