Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT01235065

GlideScope Versus Direct Laryngoscope for Emergency Intubation

The purpose of this study is to assess if the GlideScope video laryngoscope is superior to the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for definitive airway management in acutely-injured patients.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Oral Intubation Wounds and Injuries

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center

Baltimore, Maryland, 21201, United States

About this study

On admission to the emergency department following traumatic injury, many patients require placement of an artificial airway to support their breathing, provide oxygen and protect their airway. This procedure is accomplished through a number of different techniques and few studies have compared these techniques in order to establish the best method. We will compare an older technique using a metal handle and blade that allows for direct visualization of the vocal cords (direct laryngoscopy) to a newer technique that employs a fiberoptic bundle imbedded in a handle that allows indirect visualization of the vocal cords during placement of the artificial airway. The newer technique has the theoretical advantage of being more useful in patients with abnormal airways which are frequently encountered in trauma patients. Since both techniques are currently employed routinely in our institution, we will randomize all trauma admission to have an initial attempt with one of the two techniques in order to perform a randomized, unblinded trial.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

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

Inclusion criteria

  • require emergency intubation

Exclusion criteria

  • age < 18
  • require surgical airway on initial assessment
  • have known or strongly suspected spinal cord injury

Treatment and study plan

type of laryngoscope

Device

Patients who require emergency rapid sequence intubation are randomized to intubation with either the direct laryngoscope or the video laryngoscope

Other names: Macintosh direct laryngoscope vs. GlideScope video laryngoscope

Primary outcomes

  1. Number of Participants Who Survived to Hospital Discharge

    Time frame: 2 weeks, on average

    Assessment of whether or not the patient was discharged alive from the study center

Secondary outcomes

  1. Length of Time to Perform the Intubation Procedure

    Time frame: Up to 100 seconds

    How long (seconds) it takes the provider to perform the intubation procedure.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Maryland, Baltimore

Other

Registry information

Official study title

GlideScope vs. Direct Laryngoscope for Emergency Intubation

Important dates

Study start
2008
Primary completion
2016
Study completion
2016
First posted
Nov 5, 2010
Registry last updated
Jun 1, 2023

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.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.