Mount Sinai Hospital
Toronto, Ontario, M5G1X5, Canada
NCT Number: NCT01865643
The aim of this study is to compare the hemodynamic response to tracheal intubations using the standard technique versus the alternative GS intubation technique. As secondary outcomes the investigators will analyze procedure time, success rate and injury rate.
The investigators hypothesize that the alternative intubation technique will have a shorter procedure time and lower injury rate when compared to the standard technique of GS intubation.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year–65 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Toronto, Ontario, M5G1X5, Canada
A Difficult intubation is still one of the most daunting challenges in anesthesiology. One of the tools used to assist with a difficult tracheal intubation is the GlideScope (GS) (Verathon, Bothell, WA, USA). The GS is a video laryngoscope that has a 60 degree angle blade with a built-in high-resolution camera and a light source assembled beside it. The image is transmitted onto a mobile bedside monitor. It has been widely used in medicine for over a decade. The GS was designed to provide an improved view of the glottis during difficult intubations without alignment of the oral, pharyngeal and tracheal axes, as it is able to "look around the corner" to facilitate the intubation.
The standard technique of the GS intubation involves a midline laryngoscopy followed by the insertion of a styleted endotracheal tube (ETT) once an adequate view of the vocal cords has been achieved. The ETT insertion process requires the operator to look away from the monitor during the laryngoscopy while maintaining the blade position in order to insert it into its initial position.
An alternative GS intubation technique has been described for cases in which there is limited mouth opening, a big tongue or other anatomical impediments. In these cases the ETT is inserted under direct vision as a "fish hook" at the side of the mouth before the GS blade is introduced into the oropharynx.
There are several advantages to this alternative technique. The first advantage is that this technique of ETT insertion would minimize the laryngoscopy time as a part of it is performed before the blade is introduced and the stimulating effect occurs. This technique thus has the potential of reducing the sympathetic response. Minimizing oropharyngo-laryngeal stimulation time would theoretically attenuate the hemodynamic response.
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
The GlideScope is used to assist with difficult tracheal intubation.
Time frame: 24 hours
Heart rate and non-invasive blood pressure will be measured before induction, and throughout and after laryngoscopy and induction
Time frame: 10 minutes
Time for intubation will be measured as time from laryngoscopy to the inflation of the ETT cuff.
Time frame: 10 minutes
Successful placement of endotracheal tube between the vocal cords.
Time frame: 30 minutes
Injuries to the oropharynx
Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital
Other
A Comparison of Two GlideScope Intubation Techniques - Effect on Hemodynamic Changes and Injury Rate
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT00917033
Anesthesia, General, Body Weight
Copenhagen, Glostrup, Denmark
View Trial DetailsNCT06691841
Intubation, Endotracheal, Oral Hygiene
Shanghai, China
View Trial DetailsNCT05143606
Intubation, Endotracheal
Bangkok, Thailand
View Trial DetailsNCT00178555
Intubation, Endotracheal
Houston, Texas, United States
View Trial Details