Videolaryngoscopy Compared to Direct Laryngoscopy

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

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

1000 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2021-07-24

Study Completion Date

2023-08-31

Brief Summary

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

Videolaryngoscope (Macintosh-type blade) compared with direct laryngoscopy for rapid sequence intubation in the operating room

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

McGrath Videolaryngoscopy and Direct Laryngoscopy Rapid Sequence Intubation

NCT05850052

Surgery

COMPLETED NA

Evaluation of Video Laryngoscopy (Video Macintosh-blade) and Direct Laryngoscopy (EMMA-Study)

NCT02611986

Airway Morbidity

COMPLETED NA

Videolaryngoscopic Intubation Using Macintosh vs.Hyperangulated Blades in Patients With Expected Difficult Intubation

NCT05522049

Intubation; Difficult or Failed Videolaryngoscopy General Anesthesia

COMPLETED NA

Does McGRATH® MAC Videolaryngoscope Decrease the Number of People Required to Perform Intubation During Anesthesia ?

NCT02926144

Anesthesia

COMPLETED NA

McGRATH MAC Video Laryngoscope

NCT02250521

Intubation; Difficult

COMPLETED NA

Detailed Description

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

Video laryngoscopy (VL) is a etablished method of achieving tracheal intubation and there is evidence to show that visualisation of larynx can be improved using VL in failed tracheal Intubation (NAP 4 Report). VL has been shown to improve first attempt success compared to direct laryngoscopy in many clinical settings including intensive care unit (ICU) and emergency department (ED). This is a proposed comparison study of a VL, use in patients with a high risk for pulmonary Aspiration and requiring tracheal Intubation. An national, multi-center, prospective randomized comparative trial is proposed testing the superiority of oral tracheal intubation with the McGrath® MAC versus conventional laryngoscope in adult patients under general anesthesia.

Conditions

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

Pulmonary Aspiration of Gastric Contents

Study Design

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

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

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

McGrath MAC

First pass success rate using the McGrath Mac

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

McGrath Mac

Intervention Type DEVICE

in a randomized order we evaluate the first pass success rate of the tracheal tube into the trachea.

Macintosh Laryngoscope

First pass success rate using the Macintosh laryngoscope

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Macintosh Laryngoscope

Intervention Type DEVICE

in a randomized order we evaluate the first pass success rate of the tracheal tube into the trachea.

Interventions

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

McGrath Mac

in a randomized order we evaluate the first pass success rate of the tracheal tube into the trachea.

Intervention Type DEVICE

Macintosh Laryngoscope

in a randomized order we evaluate the first pass success rate of the tracheal tube into the trachea.

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* Age ≥ 18 Years
* capacity to consent
* Present written informed consent of the research participant

Exclusion Criteria

* Age \<18 years
* Existing pregnancy
* Lack of consent
* inability to consent
* Difficult Airway / Defined Indications for awake intubation
* Participation in another study

Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No