Goolsby et al. conducted a single-day, blinded, randomized, and controlled trial in Bethesda, Maryland, to evaluate the non-inferiority of the Layperson Audiovisual Assist Tourniquet (LAVA TQ) compared with the Combat Application Tourniquet (CAT) for arterial blood flow occlusion . The trial enrolled 21 healthy participants aged 18-65 years, randomized to initial application with either the LAVA TQ application (n = 11) or the CAT application (n = 10) in a crossover design allowing each participant to receive both devices. The observer palpated the dorsalis pedis pulse, after which trained military medical personnel applied a tourniquet 10 cm below the tibial plateau. Pulse absence was confirmed, and the procedure was then repeated on the contralateral leg. For the second application, surface pressure was assessed using the same method with the addition of a neonatal blood pressure cuff, and the sequence was again repeated on the opposite leg. Both the LAVA TQ and the CAT achieved 100% successful arterial occlusion, and mean pressure difference was statistically insignificant (LAVA TQ 366 mmHg vs CAT 386 mmHg; p = 0.14). The authors concluded that LAVA TQ is non-inferior to CAT, and given its user-friendly design, represents a viable alternative for layperson hemorrhage control. Limitations include the laboratory setting, expert application instead of layperson participation, lack of pain evaluation for participants, and potential measurement variability with the neonatal cuff.