Comment Period Extended to 3/23/2015 for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for FDAAA 801 and NIH Draft Reporting Policy for NIH-Funded Trials

GlideScope®Video Laryngoscope for Difficult Intubation: Implication of the Size of Blade

This study has been completed.
Sponsor:
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Jin-Tae Kim, Seoul National University Hospital
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT01616771
First received: April 30, 2012
Last updated: November 3, 2014
Last verified: November 2014

April 30, 2012
November 3, 2014
February 2011
January 2012   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
The Differences in the Glottis View (C&L Grade) of Macintosh Laryngoscope and GVL Selected by Weight. [ Time Frame: up to 1 day of surgery ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]

Glottis view was scored using C&L grade by Macintosh laryngoscope and GVL selected by weight, and compared each other.

We used modified C&L grade: grade 1, all or most of the glottic aperture was visible; grade 2a, posterior cords and cartilage visible; grade 2b, only posterior cartilage visible; grade 3a, epiglottis visible and can be lifted; grade 3b, epiglottis adherent to the posterior pharynx; and grade 4, the epiglottis could not be visualized.

For the statistical analysis, the modified C&L grade was converted to an ordinal scale; grade 1 to 1, grade 2a to 2, grade 2b to 3, grade 3a to 4, grade 3b to 5, and grade 4 to 6. Therefore, score range for the data reported in the table was between 1 and 6, with 1 representing best view and 6 representing no view.

The differences between the glottis view of Glidescope and that of direct laryngoscopy [ Time Frame: up to 1 day of surgery ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]
Initial laryngoscopic view was scored using Macintosh laryngoscope. Then, second laryngoscopic view was scored using GV with similar-size blade of initial Macintosh laryngoscopy.
Complete list of historical versions of study NCT01616771 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site
The Differences in the Glottis View (C&L Grade) of GVL Selected by Weight and Smaller Sized GVL [ Time Frame: up to 1day of surgery ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]

Glottis view was scored using C&L grade by GVL selected by weight and smaller sized GVL, and compared each other.

Score range for the data reported in the table was between 1 and 6, with 1 representing best view and 6 representing no view.

The differences between the glottis view with original-size glidescope and that with smaller-size glidescope [ Time Frame: up to 1day of surgery ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]
The last laryngoscopic view was scored using glidescope with smaller-size blade.
Not Provided
Not Provided
 
GlideScope®Video Laryngoscope for Difficult Intubation: Implication of the Size of Blade
GlideScope®Video Laryngoscope for Difficult Intubation: Implication of the Size of Blade

The investigators evaluated the usefulness of the Glidescope(GVL) compared with direct laryngoscopy in patients whose airway management are anticipated difficult (C&L grade ≥3) by comparing the laryngoscopic view. Also, the investigators compared the effectiveness of smaller-size blade of GVL (GVLs) with standard blade of GVL selected by patient's weight (GVLw) in the same patients.

We assumed that smaller sized GVL can slide more angulated along the tongue, so the tip of a blade can be placed more anterior and cephalad. The angle of camera would be optimized by inserting the blade further with the blade tip directed toward the larynx. This optimization may be more remarkable with smaller blade because it can be inserted with rotation. Furthermore, the location and the angle of camera are different according to GVL blade size. Considering that patient with difficult airway has hypognathia and more cephalad larynx, it may be helpful with smaller sized GVL (GVLs) rather than GVL selected by weight (GVLw) for improvement of laryngoscopic view in patients with difficult airways. We hypothesized that GVLs can provide better laryngoscopic view than GVLw and DL in patient with difficult airway.

Interventional
Not Provided
Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Intubation; Difficult
  • Device: Macintosh laryngoscope
    Glottis view assessment by direct visualization using Macintosh laryngoscope
  • Device: GVL selected by weight
    Glottis view assessment by GVL selected by weight which is usually selected first
    Other Name: GlideScope® videolaryngoscopy selected by weight
  • Device: smaller sized GVL
    Glottis view assessment by GVL which is smaller in one size than GVL selected by age
    Other Name: smaller sized GlideScope® videolaryngoscopy
glottis view assessment
Glottis view assessment using Macintosh laryngoscope & GVL selected by weight & smaller sized GVL in single patient
Interventions:
  • Device: Macintosh laryngoscope
  • Device: GVL selected by weight
  • Device: smaller sized GVL
Not Provided

*   Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
 
Completed
23
January 2012
January 2012   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients whose C&L grade were over 3 in previous anesthetic records.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with pulmonary aspiration, increased intracranial pressure, and severe cardiovascular disease
Both
Not Provided
No
Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects
Not Provided
 
NCT01616771
H-1111-037-385
No
Jin-Tae Kim, Seoul National University Hospital
Seoul National University Hospital
Not Provided
Study Director: Jin-Tae Kim, professor Seoul National University Hospital
Seoul National University Hospital
November 2014

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP