Phase I/II Trial Opens: AI-Enhanced 3D-Printed Videolaryngoscope vs Standard Device for Emergency Intubation — What Clinicians Need to Know

References

1. 1.Federal University of Pelotas. (2024). Clinical Performance and Usability of an AI Integrated 3D-Printed Videolaryngoscope for Orotracheal Intubation in Critically Ill Patients. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT07592702. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07592702
2. 2.Higgs, A., McGrath, B. A., Goddard, C., Rangasami, J., Suntharalingam, G., Gale, R., & Cook, T. M. (2018). Guidelines for the management of tracheal intubation in critically ill adults. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 120(2), 323-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2017.10.021
3. 3.Lewis, S. R., Butler, A. R., Parker, J., Cook, T. M., & Smith, A. F. (2017). Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 11(11), CD011136. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011136.pub2
4. 4.Sakles, J. C., Chiu, S., Mosier, J., Walker, C., & Stolz, U. (2013). The importance of first pass success when performing orotracheal intubation in the emergency department. Academic Emergency Medicine, 20(1), 71-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12055
5. 5.Tran, D. T., Newton, E. K., Mount, V. A., Lee, J. S., Wells, G. A., & Perry, J. J. (2014). Rocuronium versus succinylcholine for rapid sequence induction intubation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10(10), CD002788. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002788.pub3