First Attempt Intubation Rate With Airtraq vs Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope
NCT ID: NCT03887897
Last Updated: 2019-11-12
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.
UNKNOWN
NA
1586 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2019-10-02
2022-12-31
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.
Comparison of McGrath Series 5 and Airtraq Videolaryngoscope for Double-lumen Tube (DLT) Intubation
NCT02329041
Effect-site Concentration of Remifentanil for Double-lumen Tubes Intubation: Airtraq VS Macintosh Laryngoscope
NCT03653910
Comparison of Two Videolaryngoscopes (C-MAC vs Airtraq) for Awake Intubation
NCT05428995
Videolaryngoscopes for Double Lumen Tube Intubations
NCT02305667
A Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using the Totaltrack vs the Airtraq Laryngoscope in Routine Airway Management
NCT02395419
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The Airtraq laryngoscope is one of the optical indirect laryngoscopes, which provides glottis display without any deviation in the normal position of the oral, pharyngeal or the tracheal axes. Unlike other videolaryngoscopes, the Airtraq larygoscope is a non-steering novel airway device which has a guide channel for tracheal tube alongside with the blade. Its use has been showed to improve the ease of intubation in difficult airway situations. Up to date, randomized controlled trials comparing the Airtraq and Macintosh direct laryngoscopes are either small scaled or focusing on specific populations. And instead of the first-attempt success rate, the primary endpoints adopted have focused on the glottic view, intubation time, and cervical spine movement. The Difficult Airway Society has highlighted the importance of a robust and high standard of evidence to assess the use of new devices in airway management. Knowing that failed tracheal intubation has remained a major contribution to anesthetic-related morbidity and mortality, clinical relevant endpoint is essential to guide the selection of airway devices for tracheal intubation. Considering reports on unsuccessful tracheal intubation under satisfactory video-laryngoscopic view, using laryngoscopic view as a surrogate measure for successful intubation can give false assurances of device efficacy. While improvement in first-pass laryngoscopic success confers less airway trauma and possibly the prevention in deterioration to a 'Cannot Intubate Cannot Ventilate' scenario, it then translates into much more success than the improvement with multiple attempts and shortened intubation time. Meta-analyses have demonstrated that the Airtraq significantly decreased intubation time both in novice and in experienced anaesthetists compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. Whereas in the first-attempt intubation, an increase in the first-pass success rate was only found in novice anaesthetists with significant analysis heterogeneity.
In view of these, a large pragmatic effectiveness trial using first-pass intubation success as the primary endpoint to compare the Airtraq and Macinotosh direct laryngoscope is necessary. The trial population should include normal and abnormal airways, a variety of elective and non-elective patients and proceduralists with mixed experience to allow results to be generalizable. A large trial would allow testing of subgroup effects that has not been previously possible and results would be generalizable due to its pragmatic design. The results of this trial will provide improved guidance for current airway algorithms.
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.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
OTHER
DOUBLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Airtraq
Airtraq laryngoscope
Tracheal Intubation
Tracheal intubation performed by attending anesthesiologists using either Airtraq laryngoscope or Macintosh laryngoscope
Macintosh
Macintosh laryngoscope
Tracheal Intubation
Tracheal intubation performed by attending anesthesiologists using either Airtraq laryngoscope or Macintosh laryngoscope
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Tracheal Intubation
Tracheal intubation performed by attending anesthesiologists using either Airtraq laryngoscope or Macintosh laryngoscope
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
2. receiving general anaesthesia that requires tracheal intubation
Exclusion Criteria
2. patients scheduled for (awake or asleep) fibreoptic intubation
3. patients requiring rapid sequence intubation
4. language or congnitive problems that preclude adequate informed consent being obtained
5. patient or anaesthetist refusal.
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Tuen Mun Hospital
OTHER_GOV
Chinese University of Hong Kong
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Matthew Chan
Professor
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Mathew TV Chan, MBBS
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Chinese University of Hong Kong
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, New Territories West Cluster, Hospital Authority
Hong Kong, , Hong Kong
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Mihai R, Blair E, Kay H, Cook TM. A quantitative review and meta-analysis of performance of non-standard laryngoscopes and rigid fibreoptic intubation aids. Anaesthesia. 2008 Jul;63(7):745-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05489.x.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
FAIR AiM protocol V1.0
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.