Ignite Creation Date:
2024-05-06 @ 8:17 PM
Last Modification Date:
2024-10-26 @ 3:24 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT06327867
Status:
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Last Update Posted:
2024-04-11
First Post:
2024-03-18
Brief Title:
Comparison of Video Laryngoscopy Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Orotracheal Intubation Among Adults in Emergency Department
Sponsor:
Patan Academy of Health Sciences
Organization:
Patan Academy of Health Sciences
Study Overview
Official Title:
Comparison of Video Laryngoscopy Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Orotracheal Intubation Among Adults in Emergency Department
Status:
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Status Verified Date:
2024-04
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
This is an open-label single center prospective randomized comparative intervention study
The goal of this study is to compare the success rate of video laryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy for first pass oro tracheal intubation The other question it aims to answer are
1 To assess the adverse events during video laryngoscopy
2 To assess the adverse events during direct Laryngoscopy
3 To compare the first pass success rate of DL vs VL according to demographic profile age and sex
The goal of this study is to compare the success rate of video laryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy for first pass oro tracheal intubation The other question it aims to answer are
1 To assess the adverse events during video laryngoscopy
2 To assess the adverse events during direct Laryngoscopy
3 To compare the first pass success rate of DL vs VL according to demographic profile age and sex
Detailed Description:
All consecutive patients presenting in Emergency medicine room requiring intubation will be recruited in this study after taking informed written consent from the patients family excluding those falling in exclusion criteria Direct laryngoscopy will be done by Mackintosh Laryngoscope with blade no 3 or 4 Video Laryngoscopy will be done by Mcgrath Mac Video Laryngoscope in respective groups Intubations will be done by ER physicians and Emergency fellows of Emergency department The total number of required sample size will be calculated and the obtained number will be divided in a group of 21 with block of 6 each After randomizing the group and the block from a computerized software a total of 21 envelope will be prepared in a consecutive manner and the patient will be intubated as per the pre decided blocks All the patients in emergency who require intubation and falling into the inclusion criteria will be assessed Informed written consent will be taken from the patients family explaining that they will be a part of study and either of the laryngoscopy method will be used in them Informed consent will be taken by one of the investigators ER physicians and emergency medicine fellow who will be performing intubations in themInclusion criteria-
Age 18 years
Patient requiring orotracheal intubation
Those who give written informed consent
Exclusion criteria-
Pregnancy
Intubations done by medical officers
Randomization-
The consecutive patients will be assigned numbers serially from one
Block randomization of the patients in two arms will be done by using computerized software
A total of 63 patients in each arm with total 126 patients will be included in the study Blocks of 6 will be taken with total 21 groups With using the software random group will be selected and intubations will be done accordingly
Demographic and clinical profile of patients in both arms will be recorded Two treatment arms-
Arm A- Orotracheal intubation done by Direct Laryngoscopy
Arm B- Orotracheal intubation done by Video Laryngoscopy
Outcomes Primary- First pass success of direct laryngoscopy in oro tracheal intubation First pass success of video laryngoscopy in oro tracheal intubation
Secondary- Complications rates between two methods Use of alternative methods for ventilation or oxygenation between two methods Better visualization of Cormack-Lehane grading between two methods
Age 18 years
Patient requiring orotracheal intubation
Those who give written informed consent
Exclusion criteria-
Pregnancy
Intubations done by medical officers
Randomization-
The consecutive patients will be assigned numbers serially from one
Block randomization of the patients in two arms will be done by using computerized software
A total of 63 patients in each arm with total 126 patients will be included in the study Blocks of 6 will be taken with total 21 groups With using the software random group will be selected and intubations will be done accordingly
Demographic and clinical profile of patients in both arms will be recorded Two treatment arms-
Arm A- Orotracheal intubation done by Direct Laryngoscopy
Arm B- Orotracheal intubation done by Video Laryngoscopy
Outcomes Primary- First pass success of direct laryngoscopy in oro tracheal intubation First pass success of video laryngoscopy in oro tracheal intubation
Secondary- Complications rates between two methods Use of alternative methods for ventilation or oxygenation between two methods Better visualization of Cormack-Lehane grading between two methods
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
False
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
None