F.R.O.N.T. Formula for Pre-operative Airway Assessment and Documentation

NCT ID: NCT02313168

Last Updated: 2017-03-09

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Total Enrollment

1150 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2013-03-31

Study Completion Date

2016-03-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The F.R.O.N.T. formula for pre-operative airway assessment and documentation

Background:

Prediction of difficult airway is one of the most important challenges before general anesthesia. Although in recent decades different scoring systems have been for the preoperative assessment of their sensitivity and specificity in predicting a difficult airway remains moderate. Recently, the calculation of composite scores using different formulae has been proposed as the most sensitive one. The aim of the present work was to test the clinical usefulness of the FRONT score, a recently developed scoring system.

Methods:

This study was a multi-center, inter-observer, prospective and double-blind investigation that included 976 patients from two university centers: 250 from the University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania, and 726 from the University of Debrecen, Hungary.

The preoperative evaluation of the patients was performed by a preoperative team of anesthesiologists (team A) who evaluated and scored the expected difficulty of the management of the airway. An intraoperative team of evaluators (team B) working independently from team A, performed the actual instrumentation of the airway and scored the actual findings. Both teams used the FRONT scoring system and worked independently from each other to ensure blinded assessment. Statistical analysis of the preoperative and intraoperative FRONT scores were performed post hoc.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Criteria for preoperative assessment and grading for all five levels "F" 0 Normal level of difficulty or no difficulty to be expected

1. Difficulty to apply air tight the facial mask ventilation by one person (difficulty to maintain SpO2 above 92% with 100% O2), or inability to prevent the decrease in SpO2 during facial mask ventilation.
2. Increased ventilation difficulty, requiring the presence of two anesthetists in order to maintain the patient's oxygenation, or inability to ventilate the patient with the facial mask.

"R" 0 Normal level of difficulty or no difficulty to be expected

1. Incomplete teeth, loose teeth, edentulous status, incisor protrusion, prognathia, micrognathia, limited opening of the mouth but still more than 3 cm., expected difficulty with direct laringoscopy and/or insertion of a supraglottic device.
2. Mobile teeth, mouth opening less than 3 cm, laryngoscopy or insertion of a supraglottic airway device impossible "O"

0 Normal level of difficulty or no difficulty to be expected

1 Laryngoscopy and intubation difficult expected by intaroral mass, abscess, anatomical anomalies (large tongue) 2 Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation expected to be extremely difficult or impossible "N" 0 Normal level of difficulty or no difficulty to be expected

1. Reduced mobility of the cervical spine, short neck, bulky chest, special positioning of the patient necessary (roll under the shoulders)
2. Immobile cervical spine "T"

0 Normal level of difficulty or no difficulty to be expected

1. Expected trouble for passing the tube through the glottis (polyp, tumor, abscess), and tube with smaller diameter necessary
2. Severe obstruction in the upper airway (polyp, tumor, abscess, paralysis of the vocal cords), tracheal stenosis, tracheomalacia

Criteria for intraoperative assessment and grading for all five levels. "F" 0 Normal level of difficulty or no difficulty

1. Difficulty to seal the face mask accordingly by one person in order to maintain SpO2 above 92% by ventilating with oxygen.
2. Inability to maintain SpO2 above 92% by ventilating with oxygen with handling the face mask by two persons.

"R" 0 Normal level of difficulty or no difficulty

1. Incomplete dentition, protruding incisives, prognathia, micrognathia, a reduced interincisive gap above 3 cm thus explicitly hampering (but not completely preventing) intubation or supraglottic device insertion.
2. Incomplete dentition, protruding incisives, prognathia, micrognathia, a reduced interincisive gap below 3 cm limiting intubation or supraglottic device insertion.

"O" 0 Normal level of difficulty or no difficulty

1. Macroglossia, presence of tumours or other findings with increased oral tissue mass, tongue base processes which hamper the performance of direct laryngoscopy (Cormack/Lehane grades up to 3°), conventional intubation or the insertion of a supraglottic airway. Final success could be achieved after two attempts to secure the airway with any adopted technique.
2. Macroglossia, presence of tumours or other findings with increased oral tissue mass, tongue base processes which prevent the performance of direct laryngoscopy (Cormack/Lehane grade 4°), conventional intubation or the insertion of a supraglottic airway. Tracheal intubation could be achieved only after recurring to a visualizing technique (e.g. flexible fiberoptic).

"N" 0 Normal level of difficulty or no difficulty

1. Reduced cervical spine mobility, short neck, risk of spinal cord damage by certain head positions that hamper direct laryngoscopy and conventional means of tracheal intubation. Successful intubation possible by 2 or more attempts. Supraglottic airway insertion is not affected.
2. Reduced cervical spine mobility, short neck, risk of spinal cord damage by certain head positions that prevent direct laryngoscopy and conventional means of tracheal intubation. Tracheal intubation could be achieved only after recurring to a visualizing technique (e.g. flexible fiberoptic). Supraglottic airway insertion may have been affected.

"T" 0 Normal level of difficulty or no difficulty

1. Difficult forwarding of a tracheal tube with regular diameter to a mid-tracheal position. Supraglottic airway insertion is not affected.
2. Impossible forwarding of a tracheal tube even with a reduced diameter to a mid-tracheal position. Supraglottic airway insertion is not affected but ventilation is difficult or impossible. Necessity to apply jet ventilation or to bypass the oro-tracheal route by performing a trans-tracheal access.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Difficult Airway

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

CASE_ONLY

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

1

preoperative FRONT score

observation, inspection

Intervention Type OTHER

2

intraoperative FRONT score

observation, inspection

Intervention Type OTHER

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

observation, inspection

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

Age 18 years or older going to be intubated for general anesthesia for elective operation

Exclusion Criteria

age under 18 years
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

University of Zurich

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

University of Debrecen

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Tamas Vegh, MD

assistant professor anesthesiologist and intensive care specialist

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Bél Mr Fülesdi, MD, PhD, DSci

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Hungary University of Debrecen Debrecen, Hungary, 4032

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Hungary University of Debrecen

Debrecen, Hajdú-Bihar, Hungary

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Hungary

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

HBR/052/01763-2/2014

Identifier Type: REGISTRY

Identifier Source: secondary_id

DE KK RKEB/IKEB 4231-2014

Identifier Type: OTHER

Identifier Source: secondary_id

AITT 2014/7

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.