Comparison of C-MAC and Mc-GRATH laryngoscopes for intubation in COVID scenario.
Not Applicable
- Registration Number
- CTRI/2020/06/025927
- Lead Sponsor
- All India Institute of Medical Sciences
- Brief Summary
Not available
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- ot Yet Recruiting
- Sex
- Not specified
- Target Recruitment
- 0
Inclusion Criteria
medical professionals (non anaesthetists) with no previous experience of intubation with video laryngoscopes.
Exclusion Criteria
previous experience of intubating in similar setting (i.e. within intubation box with video laryngoscope)
Study & Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Study Design
- Not specified
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Time to intubation with each device. (Defined as the time starting from passing the tip of the laryngoscope blade into the mouth of the manikin till observation of first chest expansion with the resuscitation bag)Timepoint: Outcome noted at - Baseline.(i.e. at the time of intubation).
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method 1) Number of attempts taken for successful intubation. <br/ ><br>2) Cormack-Lehane (CL) grade. <br/ ><br>3) POGO (Percentage of glottic opening) score. <br/ ><br>4) Optimization manoeuvres <br/ ><br>5) Dental trauma <br/ ><br>7) Userâ??s preference between the two laryngoscopes â?? based on the following parameters a) ease of insertion of laryngoscope blade b) ease of visualization of vocal cords c) ease of passing the endotracheal tube d) overall preference.Timepoint: Immediately after intubation.