Comparison of Time Taken for Intubation and Cormack Lehane View Between C-Mac With Glidescope Video Laryngoscopy in Paediatric Patients

NCT04145089 | Completed DMC

• 1 other identifier: FF-2019-004
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 64
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

This study compares the time taken to intubate between Cmac video laryngoscopy with Glidescope video laryngoscopy in paediatric patients aged 3-12 years old.

Conditions

Paediatric Airway

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Intubation time

  Time taken from insertion of specified laryngoscope blade to lip until presence of capnography tracing

  5 minutes

Secondary Outcomes (1)

• Cormack Lehane view

  5 minutes

Other Outcomes (2)

• Additional maneuvre to assist intubation

  5 minutes

• adverse events

  5 minutes

Study Arms (2)

C-Mac intubation

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Intubation with C-MAC video laryngoscopy

Device: Glidescope video laryngoscopy/ C-MAC video laryngoscopy

Glidescope intubation

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Intubation with Glidescope video laryngoscopy

Device: Glidescope video laryngoscopy/ C-MAC video laryngoscopy

Interventions

Glidescope video laryngoscopy/ C-MAC video laryngoscopy DEVICE

usage of said devices according to manual

C-Mac intubation; Glidescope intubation

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 3 Years - 12 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Child (0-17)

You may qualify if:

• Paediatric patients 3-12 years old undergoing elective surgery
• American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) 1-2
• No difficult airway features/history of difficult intubation
• Not obese

You may not qualify if:

• Any difficult intubation features/history of difficult intubation
• Obese child

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre: lead

Study Sites (1)

Pusat Perubatan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur, 56000, Malaysia

Location

Related Publications (5)

• Holm-Knudsen RJ, Rasmussen LS. Paediatric airway management: basic aspects. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009 Jan;53(1):1-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01794.x.

  PMID: 19128325 BACKGROUND

• Armstrong J, John J, Karsli C. A comparison between the GlideScope Video Laryngoscope and direct laryngoscope in paediatric patients with difficult airways - a pilot study. Anaesthesia. 2010 Apr;65(4):353-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06294.x.

  PMID: 20402873 BACKGROUND

• Mosier J, Chiu S, Patanwala AE, Sakles JC. A comparison of the GlideScope video laryngoscope to the C-MAC video laryngoscope for intubation in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2013 Apr;61(4):414-420.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.11.001. Epub 2013 Jan 30.

  PMID: 23374414 BACKGROUND

• Hurford DM, White MC. A comparison of the Glidescope and Karl Storz DCI videolaryngoscopes in a paediatric manikin. Anaesthesia. 2010 Aug;65(8):781-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06390.x. Epub 2010 Jun 2.

  PMID: 20528838 BACKGROUND

• Kim JT, Na HS, Bae JY, Kim DW, Kim HS, Kim CS, Kim SD. GlideScope video laryngoscope: a randomized clinical trial in 203 paediatric patients. Br J Anaesth. 2008 Oct;101(4):531-4. doi: 10.1093/bja/aen234. Epub 2008 Aug 8.

  PMID: 18689807 BACKGROUND

Study Officials

• Syarifah Noor Nazihah Sayed Masri, MD

  Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: SINGLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT
• Masking Details: Randomization
• Purpose: DEVICE FEASIBILITY
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Model Details: GlideScope intubation Vs Cmac intubation

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: October 28, 2019
• First Posted: October 30, 2019
• Study Start: June 1, 2019
• Primary Completion: December 1, 2019
• Study Completion: January 1, 2020
• Last Updated: July 8, 2020

Record last verified: 2019-09

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

MY (1)