Comparative efficacy of the CMAC and KingVision videolaryngoscope to conventional direct laryngoscopy in patients with predicted difficult airways

Phase 4

• Conditions: Performance of airway devices; Paralyzed and intubated patients for surgery with predictors of a difficult airway; Anaesthesiology - Anaesthetics

• Registration Number: ACTRN12614000627651
• Lead Sponsor: Dr Wendy H.L. Teoh

Brief Summary

Not available

Detailed Description

Not available

Study Timeline

• Results First Posted: 1900-01-01
• Study Start: 2014-06-13
• Last Update Posted: 13 January 2020

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: ot yet recruiting
• Sex: Female
• Target Recruitment: 75

Inclusion Criteria

Patients with at least two of the following characteristics indicative of an increased risk for difficult tracheal intubation: (i) Mallampati classification 3 or 4 (ii) thyromental distance less than and equal to 6cm, (iii) inter-incisor distance less than and equal to 4cm, who are scheduled for gynaecological, breast or plastic reconstructive surgery.All patients with a previously documented difficult tracheal intubation were also eligible for inclusion.

Exclusion Criteria

We excluded patients who were ASA physical status IV, at high risk of regurgitation or aspiration.

Study & Design

• Study Type: Interventional
• Study Design: Not specified

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
The intubation difficulty score (IDS) [the sum of 7 variables: number of intubation attempts, operators, use of alternative intubation techniques, glottic exposure, magnitude of lifting force required during laryngoscopy,need for external laryngeal pressure , and position of the vocal cords at intubation ][Assessed at point of intubation of patient's trachea.]

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Time to successful tracheal intubation. This is the interval from insertion of the laryngoscope blade into the mouth to when the tracheal tube cuff is inflated after successful intubation.[After the laryngoscope has been inserted into the participant's mouth];Ease of blade and tracheal tube insertion (subjectively assessed from 0:easy, to 100:difficult)<br>[At point of intubation of patient's trachea];The quality of the view (subjectively assessed from 0: good, 100: bad)<br>[At point of intubation of patient's trachea];Successful intubation on first attempt<br>[When the laryngoscope has been inserted into the participant's mouth.];Complications associated with tracheal intubation eg. desaturation (SpO2 <95%), oesophageal intubation, laryngo-pharyngeal morbidity ie. visible lip or dental injury, mucosal injury ( blood on laryngoscope blade).<br>[At point of intubation of patient's trachea. An independent observer not involved in the trial assessed these outcomes.]