Conventional Double-lumen Tube vs VivaSight DL

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Endotracheal Intubation

• Registration Number: NCT02741921
• Lead Sponsor: Medical University of Warsaw

Brief Summary

The investigators sought to compare the time to intubation and success rate of the endotracheal intubation using standard double-lumen tube and video tube ETView DL in an adult cadaver model in normal and difficult airway conditions.

Detailed Description

Not available

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2015-11
• Primary Completion: 2016-03
• Study Completion: 2016-03
• Status Verified: 2016-04
• Study First Submitted: 2016-04-13
• Study First Submitted QC: 2016-04-15
• Last Update Submitted: 2016-04-15
• Study First Posted: 2016-04-18
• Last Update Posted: 2016-04-18

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 27

Inclusion Criteria

• fresh adult cadavers

Exclusion Criteria

• cadavers with face injures

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: CROSSOVER

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Time required for endotracheal intubation	1 day	time from pick up the tube to first ventilation

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Time required for visual confirmation of double lumen tube position position	1 day	Time required for visual confirmation of double lumen tube position position
success rate of intubation attempt	1 day	success rate of first intubation attempt
Ease of intubation	1 day	To access subjective opinion about the difficulty of each intubation method, participants were asked to rate it on a visual analog scale (VAS) with a score from 1 (extremely easy) to 10 (extremely difficult).

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Medical University of Warsaw, Department of Emergency Medicine; 🇵🇱 Warsaw, Masovia, Poland