Overview

This trial is active, not recruiting.

Condition oral intubation
Treatment type of laryngoscope
Sponsor University of Maryland
Start date July 2008
End date February 2013
Trial size 658 participants
Trial identifier NCT01235065, HP-00042451

Summary

The purpose of this study is to assess if the GlideScope video laryngoscope is superior to the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for definitive airway management in acutely-injured patients.

United States No locations recruiting
Other Countries No locations recruiting

Study Design

Allocation randomized
Endpoint classification safety/efficacy study
Intervention model parallel assignment
Masking open label
Primary purpose treatment
Arm
(Active Comparator)
emergency intubation with direct laryngoscope
type of laryngoscope Macintosh direct laryngoscope vs. GlideScope video laryngoscope
Patients who require emergency rapid sequence intubation are randomized to intubation with either the direct laryngoscope or the video laryngoscope
(Active Comparator)
emergency intubation with video laryngoscope
type of laryngoscope Macintosh direct laryngoscope vs. GlideScope video laryngoscope
Patients who require emergency rapid sequence intubation are randomized to intubation with either the direct laryngoscope or the video laryngoscope

Primary Outcomes

Measure
Survival to hospital discharge
time frame: 2 weeks, on average

Secondary Outcomes

Measure
Length of time to perform the intubation procedure
time frame: 30 seconds, on average

Eligibility Criteria

Male or female participants at least 18 years old.

Inclusion Criteria: - require emergency intubation Exclusion Criteria: - age < 18 - require surgical airway on initial assessment - have known or strongly suspected spinal cord injury

Additional Information

Official title GlideScope vs. Direct Laryngoscope for Emergency Intubation
Principal investigator Dale Yeatts, MD
Description On admission to the emergency department following traumatic injury, many patients require placement of an artificial airway to support their breathing, provide oxygen and protect their airway. This procedure is accomplished through a number of different techniques and few studies have compared these techniques in order to establish the best method. We will compare an older technique using a metal handle and blade that allows for direct visualization of the vocal cords (direct laryngoscopy) to a newer technique that employs a fiberoptic bundle imbedded in a handle that allows indirect visualization of the vocal cords during placement of the artificial airway. The newer technique has the theoretical advantage of being more useful in patients with abnormal airways which are frequently encountered in trauma patients. Since both techniques are currently employed routinely in our institution, we will randomize all trauma admission to have an initial attempt with one of the two techniques in order to perform a randomized, unblinded trial.
Trial information was received from ClinicalTrials.gov and was last updated in January 2013.
Information provided to ClinicalTrials.gov by University of Maryland.