Comparison of EzVision® Videolaryngoscope and Gum Elastic Bougie-Assisted Machintosh Laryngoscopy

NCT ID: NCT06213389

Last Updated: 2024-11-22

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

70 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2023-05-01

Study Completion Date

2024-11-19

Brief Summary

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

The aim of this study is to compare the EzVision® videoryngoscope with conventional laryngoscopy using a Macintosh blade in patients with suspected difficult intubation. This study primarily aims to test the hypothesis that laryngoscopy image is better with EzVision® videoryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy. The secondary hypothesis is also to test the view that, compared to direct laryngoscopy, EzVision® videolingoscopy will improve intubation success, reduce intubation attempts, shorten intubation time, facilitate intubation, and cause less additional complications such as bleeding or sore throat.

Detailed Description

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

Conditions

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

Intubation; Difficult or Failed Airway Complication of Anesthesia

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

SUPPORTIVE_CARE

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants

Study Groups

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

Patients to entubate with EzVision® videolaryngoscopy

Patients will intubate with EzVision® videolaryngoscopy

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

EzVision® videolaryngoscopy

Intervention Type DEVICE

Patient will be intubated with EzVision® videolaryngoscopy

Patients to intubate with Macintosh blade

Patients will intubate with Macintosh blade

Group Type OTHER

Macintosh Blade

Intervention Type DEVICE

Patient will be intubated with Macintosh Blade

Interventions

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

EzVision® videolaryngoscopy

Patient will be intubated with EzVision® videolaryngoscopy

Intervention Type DEVICE

Macintosh Blade

Patient will be intubated with Macintosh Blade

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

1. 18 to 65 years old;
2. American Association of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical condition I-II-III;
3. Elective surgery requiring oral endotracheal intubation for general anesthesia;
4. Compliance with one of the difficult intubation estimation criteria (if more than one)
5. Expected extubation in the operating room

Exclusion Criteria

1. Refusal to participate in research;
2. Age \<18 and \>65
3. ASA IV and above
4. Emergency cases
5. Body Mass Index (BMI) \> 40 kg/m2.
6. Pregnancy
7. Cardiac surgery
8. Unexpectedly difficult intubation
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

65 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

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

Nevsehir Public Hospital

OTHER_GOV

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Mehmet Akif Yazar, MD

Principal Investigator

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

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

Konya City Hospital

Konya, , Turkey (Türkiye)

Site Status

Countries

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

Turkey (Türkiye)

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Aziz MF, Dillman D, Fu R, Brambrink AM. Comparative effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscopy in the setting of the predicted difficult airway. Anesthesiology. 2012 Mar;116(3):629-36. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318246ea34.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 22261795 (View on PubMed)

Butler PJ, Dhara SS. Prediction of difficult laryngoscopy: an assessment of the thyromental distance and Mallampati predictive tests. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1992 May;20(2):139-42. doi: 10.1177/0310057X9202000202.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 1595845 (View on PubMed)

Garza AG, Gratton MC, Coontz D, Noble E, Ma OJ. Effect of paramedic experience on orotracheal intubation success rates. J Emerg Med. 2003 Oct;25(3):251-6. doi: 10.1016/s0736-4679(03)00198-7.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 14585451 (View on PubMed)

Khan ZH, Kashfi A, Ebrahimkhani E. A comparison of the upper lip bite test (a simple new technique) with modified Mallampati classification in predicting difficulty in endotracheal intubation: a prospective blinded study. Anesth Analg. 2003 Feb;96(2):595-9, table of contents. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200302000-00053.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 12538218 (View on PubMed)

Lascarrou JB, Boisrame-Helms J, Bailly A, Le Thuaut A, Kamel T, Mercier E, Ricard JD, Lemiale V, Colin G, Mira JP, Meziani F, Messika J, Dequin PF, Boulain T, Azoulay E, Champigneulle B, Reignier J; Clinical Research in Intensive Care and Sepsis (CRICS) Group. Video Laryngoscopy vs Direct Laryngoscopy on Successful First-Pass Orotracheal Intubation Among ICU Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017 Feb 7;317(5):483-493. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.20603.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 28118659 (View on PubMed)

Lewis SR, Butler AR, Parker J, Cook TM, Smith AF. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 15;11(11):CD011136. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011136.pub2.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 27844477 (View on PubMed)

Related Links

Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.

Other Identifiers

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

2023/1011

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

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

Comparison of Two Different Video Laryngoscopes
NCT06649526 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING