Intubation During Spinal Immobilization
C-MAC Compared to Direct Laryngoscopy in Patients With Immobilized Cervical Spine by Unexperienced Physicians: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Trial
1 other identifier
interventional
50
1 country
1
Brief Summary
The aim was to evaluate the performance of the C-MAC compared with Macintosh when performed in patients with immobilized cervical spine by unexperienced physicians.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P25-P50 for not_applicable
Started Dec 2016
Shorter than P25 for not_applicable
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
First Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
April 5, 2016
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
April 11, 2016
CompletedStudy Start
First participant enrolled
December 1, 2016
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
February 1, 2017
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
April 1, 2017
CompletedJuly 27, 2017
July 1, 2017
2 months
April 5, 2016
July 25, 2017
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (1)
Time required for successful intubation
1 day
Secondary Outcomes (4)
success rate of intubation attempt
1 day
Cormack&Lehane grade
1 day
Dental Compression
1 day
Ease of intubation
1 day
Study Arms (3)
Scenario A
EXPERIMENTALmanikin with normal standard airway
Scenario B
EXPERIMENTALCervical immobilization using a standard Patriot cervical extraction collar (Oessur Americas, Foothill Ranch, CA, USA), applied to the manikin's neck by an instructor.
Scenario C
EXPERIMENTALCervical immobilization using a vacuum mattress (Ferno-Washington, Inc. Wilmington, OH, USA), applied to the manikin's neck by an instructor
Interventions
1\) Direct laryngoscopy using a Macintosh laryngoscope with size 3 blade (Mercury Medical, Clearwater, FL, USA) with a conventional 7.0 mm internal diameter (ID) tracheal tube
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- give voluntary consent to participate in the study
- limited experience (\<5 intubations) with "real-life" intubation using direct laryngoscopy
- novice phhysicians
You may not qualify if:
- not meet the above criteria
- practice with any videolaryngoscopy
- wrist or low back diseases
- pregnancy
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Study Sites (1)
Medical University of Warsaw, Department of Emergency Medicine
Warsaw, Masovia, 02-005, Poland
Related Publications (5)
Truszewski Z, Szarpak L, Smereka J, Kurowski A, Evrin T, Czyzewski L. Comparison of the VivaSight single lumen endotracheal tube and the Macintosh laryngoscope for emergency intubation by experienced paramedics in a standardized airway manikin with restricted access: a randomized, crossover trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2016 May;34(5):929-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2016.02.054. Epub 2016 Feb 27. No abstract available.
PMID: 26979260BACKGROUNDBogdanski L, Truszewski Z, Kurowski A, Czyzewski L, Zasko P, Adamczyk P, Szarpak L. Simulated endotracheal intubation of a patient with cervical spine immobilization during resuscitation: a randomized comparison of the Pentax AWS, the Airtraq, and the McCoy Laryngoscopes. Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Dec;33(12):1814-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2015.09.005. Epub 2015 Sep 21.
PMID: 26494629BACKGROUNDGawlowski P, Smereka J, Madziala M, Szarpak L, Frass M, Robak O. Comparison of the Macintosh laryngoscope and blind intubation via the iGEL for Intubation With C-spine immobilization: A Randomized, crossover, manikin trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2017 Mar;35(3):484-487. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2016.11.064. Epub 2016 Nov 30.
PMID: 28041757BACKGROUNDKarczewska K, Szarpak L, Smereka J, Dabrowski M, Ladny JR, Wieczorek W, Robak O, Frass M, Ahuja S, Ruetzler K. ET-View compared to direct laryngoscopy in patients with immobilized cervical spine by unexperienced physicians: A randomized crossover manikin trial. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2017;49(4):274-282. doi: 10.5603/AIT.a2017.0047. Epub 2017 Sep 27.
PMID: 28953308DERIVEDTruszewski Z, Krajewski P, Fudalej M, Smereka J, Frass M, Robak O, Nguyen B, Ruetzler K, Szarpak L. A comparison of a traditional endotracheal tube versus ETView SL in endotracheal intubation during different emergency conditions: A randomized, crossover cadaver trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Nov;95(44):e5170. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005170.
PMID: 27858851DERIVED
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Study Officials
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Łukasz Szarpak, PhD
Medical University of Warsaw
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- NONE
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Intervention Model
- CROSSOVER
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- Principal Investigator
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
April 5, 2016
First Posted
April 11, 2016
Study Start
December 1, 2016
Primary Completion
February 1, 2017
Study Completion
April 1, 2017
Last Updated
July 27, 2017
Record last verified: 2017-07