Patients Need Tracheal Intubation Clinical Trial
Official title:
Comparison of the Macintosh, King Vision®, Glidescope® and AirTraq® Laryngoscopes in Routine Airway Management
| Verified date | May 2015 |
| Source | Dammam University |
| Contact | n/a |
| Is FDA regulated | No |
| Health authority | Saudi Arabia: Minister of Higher Education |
| Study type | Interventional |
Failure to successfully intubate the trachea and secure the airway remains a leading cause
of morbidity and mortality, in the operative [1-2] and emergency settings. [3-4]. When the
concept of endotracheal intubation was developed, 100 years ago the procedure was performed
blindly. Shortly thereafter, laryngoscopes were invented, allowing for direct visualization
of the larynx with a viewing angle of 15 degrees [5]. Insufficient laryngoscopic view
constitutes the main reason for difficult intubations [6].
Video laryngoscopes provide an improved view of the glottis, as the camera is a few
millimeters away from the glottis. The use of Glidescope [7-8] and AirTraq [9] laryngoscopes
has superior glottis view and ease of tracheal intubation compared with the traditional
Macintosh laryngoscope. Unfortunately, the use video laryngoscopes is associated with longer
time to tracheal intubation compared with the traditional techniques which be explained with
the variable learning curves of the practitioners. [10]
The King Vision video laryngoscope® (King Systems Company, a division of Consort Medical,
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA) is a relative newcomer to the video laryngoscopes of devices
that claim to provide the "perfect view" for intubation via use of video and digital
technology.
The King Vision Video laryngoscope is a two piece design. It has a reusable monitor that
attaches to disposable blades. Blades are made of high quality poly-carbonate plastic and
house a complementary semi-conductor (CMOS) micro camera offers a 160 degree of view and LED
light source.
Up to best of the authors' knowledge, there is no current published or ongoing randomized
controlled comparative study of the use of King Vision laryngoscope with traditional
laryngoscope and other video laryngoscopes for endotracheal intubation.
| Status | Completed |
| Enrollment | 86 |
| Est. completion date | April 2015 |
| Est. primary completion date | March 2015 |
| Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
| Gender | Female |
| Age group | 18 Years to 65 Years |
| Eligibility |
Inclusion Criteria: - American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I-II - aged 18-65 years - scheduled for elective surgery - under general anesthesia Exclusion Criteria: - Expected or known difficult airway - history of cervical spine injury - history of cervical spine surgery - previous throat surgery - previous oral surgery - gastro-esophageal reflux disease - pregnancy - need for rapid sequence induction - emergent surgery - body mass index higher than 35 kg/m2 - Missing incisor teeth - Unstable hypertension - Unstable coronary artery disease - Asthma - Cerbrovascular disease |
Allocation: Randomized, Endpoint Classification: Safety/Efficacy Study, Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment, Masking: Single Blind (Outcomes Assessor), Primary Purpose: Prevention
| Country | Name | City | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | Dammam University | Al Khubar | Eastern |
| Saudi Arabia | King Fahd Hospital of the University | Al Khubar | Eastern |
| Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
|---|---|
| Dammam University |
Saudi Arabia,
| Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Time to tracheal intubation | the time when the investigated laryngoscope passes the central incisors to the time when the tip of the tracheal tube passed through the glottis | participants will be followed for the duration of tracheal intubation, an expected average of 60 seconds | Yes |
| Secondary | laryngoscopic view | The best view during laryngoscopy (using Cormack and Lehane classification) | participants will be followed for the duration of laryngeal exposure, an expected average of 90 seconds | No |
| Secondary | ease of intubation | using a 10 cm visual analog scale (0 for much of ease and 10 for extremely difficult). | participants will be followed for the duration of tracheal intubation, an expected average of 60 seconds | Yes |
| Secondary | number of intubation attempts | number of intubation attempts | participants will be followed for the duration of tracheal intubation, an expected average of 60 seconds | Yes |
| Secondary | number of optimization maneuvers | If intubation is unsuccessful at the first attempt, took longer than 120 seconds, or if desaturation noted on the pulse oximeter (defined as SpO2 < 92%) [14], the intubation attempt will be stopped and the lungs will be ventilated with an oxygen-volatile anesthetic mixture for 3 min. A second attempt will be allowed with the randomly allocated airway device. | participants will be followed for the duration of tracheal intubation, an expected average of 60 seconds | Yes |
| Secondary | duration of laryngoscopy | the time from holding of the investigated laryngoscope to the appearance of as the first upward deflection on the capnograph | during laryngoscopy | Yes |
| Secondary | Hemodynamic parameters | heart rate, systolic and mean blood pressures | participants will be followed for the duration of laryngeal exposure, an expected average of 90 seconds | Yes |