| Recruitment status | Completed |
| Unique ID issued by UMIN | UMIN000027925 |
| Receipt No. | R000016182 |
| Official scientific title of the study | Comparison of video laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation in ER and ICU |
| Date of disclosure of the study information | 2017/06/26 |
| Last modified on | 2017/06/25 (Ver. 1) |
| Basic information | ||
| Official scientific title of the study | Comparison of video laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation in ER and ICU | |
| Title of the study (Brief title) | Comparison of video laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation in ER and ICU | |
| Region |
|
|
| Condition | |||
| Condition | cases of emergency TI | ||
| Classification by specialty |
|
||
| Classification by malignancy | Others | ||
| Genomic information | NO | ||
| Objectives | |
| Narrative objectives1 | To compare the superiority and safety among three video laryngoscopes (Pentax-Airway Scope, King Vison, McGrath MAC) and conventional Macintosh laryngoscope in emergency and critical care setting. |
| Basic objectives2 | Safety,Efficacy |
| Basic objectives -Others | |
| Trial characteristics_1 | |
| Trial characteristics_2 | |
| Developmental phase | |
| Assessment | |
| Primary outcomes | First attempt success rate of tracheal intubation |
| Key secondary outcomes | Time needed to perform TI
Subjective difficulty scale Complications and esophageal intubation |
| Base | |
| Study type | Observational |
| Study design | |
| Basic design | |
| Randomization | |
| Randomization unit | |
| Blinding | |
| Control | |
| Stratification | |
| Dynamic allocation | |
| Institution consideration | |
| Blocking | |
| Concealment | |
| Intervention | |
| No. of arms | |
| Purpose of intervention | |
| Type of intervention | |
| Interventions/Control_1 | |
| Interventions/Control_2 | |
| Interventions/Control_3 | |
| Interventions/Control_4 | |
| Interventions/Control_5 | |
| Interventions/Control_6 | |
| Interventions/Control_7 | |
| Interventions/Control_8 | |
| Interventions/Control_9 | |
| Interventions/Control_10 | |
| Eligibility | ||||
| Age-lower limit |
|
|||
| Age-upper limit |
|
|||
| Gender | Male and Female | |||
| Key inclusion criteria | Patients who required emergency tracheal intubation in the emergency department and intensive care unit with video recording. | |||
| Key exclusion criteria | none | |||
| Target sample size | 280 | |||
| Research contact person | |
| Name of lead principal investigator | Kei Suzuki |
| Organization | Hiroshima University |
| Division name | Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine |
| Address | 1-2-3Kasumi,Minami-ku,Hiroshima 734-8551 Japan |
| TEL | 0822575456 |
| suzukik@hiroshima-u.ac.jp | |
| Public contact | |
| Name of contact person | Kei Suzuki |
| Organization | Hiroshima University |
| Division name | Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine |
| Address | 1-2-3Kasumi,Minami-ku,Hiroshima 734-8551 Japan |
| TEL | 0822575456 |
| Homepage URL | |
| suzukik@hiroshima-u.ac.jp | |
| Sponsor | |
| Institute | Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Hiroshima University |
| Institute | |
| Department | |
| Funding Source | |
| Organization | Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Hiroshima University |
| Organization | |
| Division | |
| Category of Funding Organization | Other |
| Nationality of Funding Organization | |
| Other related organizations | |
| Co-sponsor | Hiroshima Prefectural Hospital |
| Name of secondary funder(s) | |
| Secondary IDs | |
| Secondary IDs | NO |
| Study ID_1 | |
| Org. issuing International ID_1 | |
| Study ID_2 | |
| Org. issuing International ID_2 | |
| IND to MHLW | |
| Institutions | |
| Institutions | 広島大学病院(広島県) 県立広島病院(広島県) |
| Other administrative information | |||||||
| Date of disclosure of the study information |
|
||||||
| Progress | |||||||
| Recruitment status | Completed | ||||||
| Date of protocol fixation |
|
||||||
| Anticipated trial start date |
|
||||||
| Last follow-up date | |||||||
| Date of closure to data entry | |||||||
| Date trial data considered complete | |||||||
| Date analysis concluded | |||||||
| Related information | |
| URL releasing protocol | |
| Publication of results | Unpublished |
| URL releasing results | |
| Results | 287 cases were enrolled. First attempt success rate differed significantly among the 4 laryngoscopes (Pentax-Airway Scope, AWS=78%, King VISION, KV=58%, McGrath MAC, McG=78%, and Macintosh laryngoscope, ML=58%, p=0.004). In post hoc analysis, AWS or McG had higher first attempt success rate compared with KV or ML respectively. In non-experts subgroup, first attempt success rate was differed among 4 laryngoscopes (87%, 50% 78% and 46%, p=0.00004) and AWS or McG had significantly higher first attempt success rate compared with KV or ML respectively, but not in experts subgroup (67% vs 67% vs 78% vs 78%, p=0.556). After adjusting for indications of tracheal intubation, limited mouth opening, restricted neck mobilization, bloods/secretion/vomitus in airway, expert/non-expert, use of AWS (odds ratio 3.422, 95% confidence interval 1.551-7.550, p=0.002) and McG (3.758, 1.640-8.612, p=0.002) were associated with increased odds of first attempt success. |
| Other related information | There was a significant difference in time needed to perform TI (mean) among 4 laryngoscopes (63, 63, 62 and 52 sec, p=0.043) with no differences detected in post hoc analysis. There was a significant difference in difficulty score (mean) among 4 laryngoscopes (39, 43, 32 and 45, p=0.009) and McG was evaluated as easier than ML in post hoc analysis (p=0.027). There was no difference between 4 laryngoscopes about complications. |
| Management information | |||||||
| Registered date |
|
||||||
| Last modified on |
|
||||||
| Link to view the page | |
| URL(English) | https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000016182 |