Airway Deadspace in Children: Air-Q Versus Endotracheal Tube
NCT ID: NCT03785977
Last Updated: 2020-03-27
Study Results
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.
COMPLETED
62 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2019-03-25
2019-08-09
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Cuff Pressure Regulation Apparatus for Tracheal Intubation in Children
NCT04413318
Comparison of the Q-NRG+ Indirect Calorimetry Device Versus the V(Max) Encore Device in Mechanically Ventilated Children
NCT04482556
Does Diaphragm Electrical Activity Monitoring Predict Extubation Success in Children?
NCT06163183
Comparison Between Two Endotracheal Tube Cuff Inflation Methods
NCT03902756
Tracheal Ultrasound for Confirmation of ETT Placement in NICU
NCT07073105
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Participants in the study will be given ETT or Air-Q as an intervention, but the investigator does not assign specific interventions to the study participants.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
CASE_ONLY
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Air-Q 5-9kg
Participants weighing 5-9kg may be chosen to wear the Air-Q device.
No interventions assigned to this group
Air-Q 10-14kg
Participants weighing 10-14kg may be chosen to wear the Air-Q device.
No interventions assigned to this group
Air-Q 15-20kg
Participants weighing 15-20kg may be chosen to wear the Air-Q device.
No interventions assigned to this group
ETT 5-9kg
Participants weighing 5-9kg may be chosen to wear the ETT device.
No interventions assigned to this group
ETT 10-14kg
Participants weighing 10-14kg may be chosen to wear the ETT device.
No interventions assigned to this group
ETT 15-20kg
Participants weighing 15-20kg may be chosen to wear the ETT device.
No interventions assigned to this group
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Patient presenting outpatient urologic or general surgery
Exclusion Criteria
* Patients suspected to have a difficult airway.
* Morbid obesity BMI \>39
* Emergency status of surgery
* Patients exposed to second hand smoke
* Patients with Asthma
* Patients with a URI symptom such as nasal drainage, cough, or fever within 7 days of the date of surgery
* History of Prematurity
3 Months
6 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Thomas Templeton, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Micaglio M, Bonato R, De Nardin M, Parotto M, Trevisanuto D, Zanardo V, Doglioni N, Ori C. Prospective, randomized comparison of ProSeal and Classic laryngeal mask airways in anaesthetized neonates and infants. Br J Anaesth. 2009 Aug;103(2):263-7. doi: 10.1093/bja/aep106. Epub 2009 May 19.
Templeton TW, Hoke LK, Templeton LB, Ririe DG, Rose DM, Bryan YF. A comparison of 3 ventilation strategies in children younger than 1 year using a Proseal laryngeal mask airway: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Anesth. 2016 Dec;35:502-508. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.07.042. Epub 2016 Oct 19.
Garcia-Fernandez J, Tusman G, Suarez-Sipmann F, Llorens J, Soro M, Belda JF. Programming pressure support ventilation in pediatric patients in ambulatory surgery with a laryngeal mask airway. Anesth Analg. 2007 Dec;105(6):1585-91, table of contents. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000287674.64086.f1.
Drake-Brockman TF, Ramgolam A, Zhang G, Hall GL, von Ungern-Sternberg BS. The effect of endotracheal tubes versus laryngeal mask airways on perioperative respiratory adverse events in infants: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017 Feb 18;389(10070):701-708. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31719-6. Epub 2017 Jan 18.
Casati A, Fanelli G, Torri G. Physiological dead space/tidal volume ratio during face mask, laryngeal mask, and cuffed oropharyngeal airway spontaneous ventilation. J Clin Anesth. 1998 Dec;10(8):652-5. doi: 10.1016/s0952-8180(98)00108-1.
Templeton TW, Goenaga-Diaz EJ, Templeton LB, Ririe DG. An in vitro analysis of the dead space in 5 supraglottic airway devices intended for use in small children and infants. Paediatr Anaesth. 2018 Jun;28(6):570-572. doi: 10.1111/pan.13382. No abstract available.
Templeton TW, Hoke LK, Yaung J, Aschenbrenner CA, Rose DM, Templeton LB, Bryan YF. Comparing 3 ventilation modalities by measuring several respiratory parameters using the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway in children. J Clin Anesth. 2016 Nov;34:272-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.04.031. Epub 2016 May 15.
Al-Subu A, Jooste E, Hornik CP, Fleming GA, Cheifetz IM, Ofori-Amanfo G. Correlation between minute carbon dioxide elimination and pulmonary blood flow in single-ventricle patients after stage 1 palliation and 2-ventricle patients with intracardiac shunts: A pilot study. Paediatr Anaesth. 2018 Jul;28(7):618-624. doi: 10.1111/pan.13423.
Ream RS, Schreiner MS, Neff JD, McRae KM, Jawad AF, Scherer PW, Neufeld GR. Volumetric capnography in children. Influence of growth on the alveolar plateau slope. Anesthesiology. 1995 Jan;82(1):64-73. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199501000-00010.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
IRB00055260
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.