Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT04863846

Evidence-based Algorithm for the Expected Difficult Intubation

The Expect-it study aims to accompany the development and clinical implementation process of a new algorithm for the management of expected difficult intubation. The new algorithm is designed to allocate patients to specific tracheal intubation techniques. After assessing the status quo (non-algorithm-based decision-making) the new algorithm-based allocation will be compared with this clinical standard within a confirmatory diagnostic accuracy study (post-implementation).

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Observational

Primary location

University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf

Hamburg, 20246, Germany

About this study

Difficult tracheal intubation is one of the major reasons for anesthesia-related adverse events. Patients undergoing ear, nose & throat (ENT) or oral and maxillofacial (OMS) surgery often require tracheal intubation for general anesthesia but are at increased risk for difficult tracheal intubation. Currently, existing preoperative tests for the prediction of difficult intubation show low diagnostic accuracy. Moreover, as the results of these prediction tests are not coupled with concrete treatment recommendations, they cannot be used targeted within preventive concepts. An evidence based rational algorithm for the management of expected difficult intubation has not been developed yet. It is unknown, if an algorithm-based allocation to an intubation approach might be advantageous compared with a non-algorithm-based allocation strategy.

The Expect-it study aims to accompany the development and clinical implementation process of a new algorithm for the management of expected difficult intubation. This new algorithm is designed to provide an evidence-based decision-making tool for a rational pre-choice of tracheal intubation techniques, anesthetized intubation by direct laryngoscopy (DL) or videolaryngoscopy (VL) or awake tracheal intubation (ATI). In the first study phase the status quo (clinical standard, non-algorithm-based decision-making) will be assessed (three-month period with an approximated case number of up to 600 patients). The Expect-it algorithm will be implemented thereafter. Between both study phases, the algorithm will be updated (based on the findings of the first phase), sensitivity and specificity of the clinical standard will be calculated, sample size will critically be appraised and readjusted (approximately 600 within at least three months), if appropriate. The second study phase is a confirmatory diagnostic accuracy study for the new algorithm with a single test study design, that aims to proof, if the new Expect-it algorithm is superior or at least non-inferior to the clinical standard, defined as superiority in either the specificity or sensitivity and non-inferiority in the other co-primary endpoint in each domain (ATI, DL, VL) (pre-planned preliminary analysis of the first study phase; IRB amendment 2021-10459_2-BO-ff, December 3, 2021). Sensitivity and specificity are considered co-primary endpoints. Study planning and conduction is in accordance with the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) statement. The Expect-it study will further include two surveys among anesthetist in the study center in order to evaluate challenges and obstacles associated with the implementation process and possible clinical implications of the algorithm. An additional analysis will be performed to test a core data set for an 'anesthesia alert card'.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients undergoing ENT or OMS surgery that require general anesthesia with tracheal intubation (either DL, VL or ATI)
  • Age ≥ 18 years

Exclusion criteria

  • Denial of consent
  • Planned intubation technique is not designated in the study protocol as it differs from either DL, VL, ATI (e.g. primary tracheotomy or rigid bronchoscopy)

Treatment and study plan

no intervention, observational study

Other

Exposure of interest: clinical implementation of an algorithm

Primary outcomes

  1. First phase: sensitivity and specificity (co-primary endpoints) of the clinical standard

    Time frame: 3 months

    Clinical assessment

  2. Second phase: sensitivity and specificity (co-primary endpoints) of 'ATI recommendation' by the algorithm vs. 'VL/DL'

    Time frame: 3 months

    Clinical assessment

  3. Second phase: sensitivity and specificity (co-primary endpoints) of 'DL recommendation' by the algorithm vs. 'VL/ATI'

    Time frame: 3 months

    Clinical assessment

  4. Second phase: sensitivity and specificity (co-primary endpoints) of 'VL recommendation' by the algorithm vs. 'DL/ATI'

    Time frame: 3 months

    Clinical assessment

Secondary outcomes

  1. Post-intubation recommendation for an intubation method

    Time frame: 1 hour

    Recommendation of the responsible anesthetist

  2. Post-intubation recommendation for an anesthesia alert card

    Time frame: 1 hour

    Recommendation of the responsible anesthetist

  3. Post-intubation diagnosis 'difficult intubation'

    Time frame: 1 hour

    Rating of the responsible anesthetist

  4. Post-intubation diagnosis 'difficult face-mask-ventilation'

    Time frame: 1 hour

    Rating of the responsible anesthetist

  5. Classification of intubation difficulty (VIDIAC classification)

    Time frame: 1 hour

    Rating between -1 and 5 points

  6. Best glottic view

    Time frame: 1 hour

    Grading according to 'Percentage of Glottis Opening' (POGO)

  7. Best glottic view

    Time frame: 1 hour

    Grading according to the Cormack Lehane classification (I-IV)

  8. First pass success rate

    Time frame: 1 hour

    Percentage of successful intubations with one attempt

  9. Overall success rate of the first choice technique

    Time frame: 1 hour

    Percentage of successful intubation without transition to another technique

  10. Number of attempts

    Time frame: 1 hour

    Total number of attempts until airway established

  11. Intubation time

    Time frame: 1 hour

    Time to successful tracheal intubation

  12. Lowest oxygen saturation

    Time frame: 1 hour

    Measured with pulse oxymetry during anesthesia induction

  13. Overall intubation difficulty, ease of intubation, quality of visualization

    Time frame: 1 hour

    Subjective ratings on visual analogue scales (0 to 100 with 0 being the best)

  14. Airway-related adverse events

    Time frame: 1 hour

    Laryngospasm, bronchospasm, larynx trauma, airway trauma, soft tissue trauma, oral bleeding, edema, dental damage, corticosteroid application, accidental esophageal intubation, aspiration, hypotension or hypoxia

  15. Patient discomfort, satisfaction, symptoms

    Time frame: 12 hours

    Clinical assessment during follow-up

  16. Clinical evaluation of a core dataset 'anesthesia alert card'

    Time frame: 10 months

    Rating of various anesthetist

  17. Quality of care of the current clinical standard and the effects of algorithm implementation

    Time frame: 7 months

    Survey among anesthetist

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Development and Implementation of an Evidence-based Clinical Algorithm for the Expected Difficult Intubation

Acronym: Expect-it

Important dates

Study start
2021
Primary completion
2022
Study completion
2022
First posted
Apr 28, 2021
Registry last updated
Mar 2, 2022

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.