Comparison of two video laryngoscopes in patients undergoing tracheal intubation with cervical spine immobilization

Phase 1

Completed

• Conditions: ASA I and ASA IIAge between 18-65 yearsMallampati Class I, II and III

• Registration Number: CTRI/2018/05/014068
• Lead Sponsor: Artemis Health Institute

Brief Summary

Following parameters were observed:

1. Parameters of  Intubation Difficulty Scale (IDS)

2. Time taken for intubation

3. Haemodynamic parameters

4. Complications, if any

In patients with cervical spine immobilization, intubation with King Vision® videolaryngoscope required lesser time than using Truview®EVO2 laryngoscope. No significant difference was found in laryngoscopic view and IDS score with both the devices. There is no statistically significant difference in haemodynamic parameters while intubation and post-intubation in both groups. There is no major complication in any of the groups. To conclude both types of laryngoscopes are safe and efficient for intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization considering high overall success rate and no significant trauma involved.

Detailed Description

Not available

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2016-01-08
• Study Completion: 2017-03-31
• Last Update Posted: 2018-05-23

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 60

Inclusion Criteria

ASA I and ASA II Mallampati class I, II and III.

Exclusion Criteria

• Anticipated difficult airway (Mallampati class IV, thyromental distance <6 cm, interincisor gap <3.5 cm).
• Presence of risk factor for gastric aspiration e.g. pregnancy.
• Uncontrolled hypertension and diabetes mellitus, cardiac disease, hepatic and renal impairment.
• Loose teeth and artificial dentures.
• Oral pathology.
• CNS disorder.

Study & Design

• Study Type: Interventional
• Study Design: Not specified

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
EVO2 (2.03±1.38). But the difference between King Vision and Truview ®	During laryngoscopy and intubation
IDS score was less in King Vision ® (1.63±1.25) as compared to Truview ®	During laryngoscopy and intubation
EVO2 groups were not statistically significant.	During laryngoscopy and intubation

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Mean duration of intubation was significantly longer in Truview® EVO2 group as compared to King Vision®.	Haemodynamic parameters (HR, MAP, Spo2) were comparable in both groups with no statistical significant difference.

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Artemis Health Institute; 🇮🇳 Gurgaon, HARYANA, India

Artemis Health Institute

🇮🇳Gurgaon, HARYANA, India

Alka Yadav

Principal investigator

8607706935

dralkayadava@gmail.com