Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT01129765

Home Usability of a Nasal Lavage System in Children

This study evaluates labeling comprehension, ease of use and effectiveness of a new device for nasal and sinus irrigation and/or aspiration. The device is currently cleared for professional use and home use with a prescription. This is a usability study to demonstrate that this device is appropriate for home use.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Nasal Congestion Airway Obstruction Allergic Rhinitis Hypersensitivity Hypersensitivity, Immediate Immune System Diseases Infections Nasal Obstruction Nose Diseases Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases Paranasal Sinus Diseases Respiration Disorders Respiratory Hypersensitivity Respiratory Insufficiency Respiratory Tract Diseases Respiratory Tract Infection Respiratory Tract Infections Rhinitis Rhinitis, Allergic Sinusitis

Age range

Up to 5 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Observational

Primary location

Advanced Pediatrics

Vienna, Virginia, 22180, United States

About this study

Nasal congestion is an important complication of viral upper respiratory infections in young children. It can lead to poor eating, sleeping and breathing. Recently, the FDA recommended against using over-the-counter cold remedies in young children because of inefficacy and occasional dangerous side effects. A commonly recommended non-drug solution for nasal congestion is nasal suctioning. This can be effective but currently available methods have been found to be awkward, uncomfortable and ineffective.

The studied device has potential for making nasal suctioning easy to perform in the home setting, especially in young children. It is already FDA cleared for professional use and this study was developed to demonstrate that it is appropriate for the home as well. This would be significant as it would allow parents a strategy of clearing their child's nose without drugs.

The device is automatic and handheld that can irrigate and/or aspirate the nasal cavity with hospital-grade suction. The handle houses a pump that can achieve air flows known to be effective for infant nasal suctioning in the hospital. A disposable wash-head is placed on top. It has an irrigation chamber with 0.9% saline and another chamber for collecting the aspirated nasal contents. The unit operates from a single bi-functional button.

Several key safety features have been built in such as: a tip that is shaped to maximize the seal but prevent intrusion into the nose; an irrigation function that delivers an optimal volume but prevents flooding the nasal cavity; and a pump that can deliver suction known to be effective in the hospital but whose safety valve does not allow it to rise above dangerous levels.

Participants were parents of children who have nasal congestion for whom nasal suctioning is traditionally recommended. They were asked to review the instruction manual of the device, and then use it on their children.

The primary outcome was proper use of device that was precisely defined. Additionally, subjective efficacy of mucus removal, evidence of adverse events and understanding of the device's user manual were also measured.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

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

Inclusion criteria

  • Parents of children less than 6 years of age who were suffering from nasal congestion for which nasal suctioning and salt water irrigation/drops are prescribed.

Exclusion criteria

  • Parents of children in marked respiratory distress or who maxillofacial malformations not conducive to nasal suctioning.
  • Additionally, parents of children with recurrent nose bleeds, bleeding disorders or irritated peri-nasal skin were excluded.

Treatment and study plan

Use of an automatic nasal irrigator/aspirator

Device

After reading the device's user manual, parents were asked to use it on their congested children to their satisfaction. During this time, a clinical observer recorded predetermined steps that needed to be performed for success as well as presence of any adverse events.

Other names: Nasal aspiration, Nasal irrigation, Nasal lavage

Primary outcomes

  1. Number of Participants Who Properly Used the Nasal Irrigator/Aspirator Device

    Time frame: Day one, immediately

    'Proper use' is defined as successfully completing all of the following five steps:

    • Attaching wash-head to handle properly
    • Positioning child correctly for procedure as per the user manual's instructions
    • Using the device's control button correctly for both irrigation and aspiration
    • Placing the wash-head tip correctly at the nasal opening
    • Using the device for up to but not exceeding five seconds

Secondary outcomes

  1. Number of Participants Who Experienced Ease of Use With the Device

    Time frame: Day one, immediately

    After using the device, the caregiver answered this question on a five point Likert-like scale with increasing favorability with increasing number. An answer of 3 or greater is considered an affirmative answer. Such responses reported along with the exact 95% confidence intervals.

    The question and scale are as follows: How easy was the device to use?

    1 difficult, 2 somewhat hard, 3 fairly easy, 4 easy, 5 very easy

  2. Number of Participants Who Found the Device to be Effective

    Time frame: Day one, immediately

    After using the device, the caregiver answered this question on a five point Likert-like scale with increasing favorability with increasing number. The proportion answering 3 or greater is reported along with the exact 95% confidence intervals.

    The question and scale are as follows: How well did the device remove nasal secretions?

    1 difficult, 2 somewhat hard, 3 fairly easy, 4 easy, 5 very easy

  3. Number of Participants Who Identified the Device's User Manual as Easy to Understand

    Time frame: Day one, immediately

    After using the device, the caregiver answered this question on a five point Likert-like scale with increasing favorability with increasing number. The proportion answering 3 or greater is reported along with the exact 95% confidence intervals.

    The question and scale are as follows: How easy was the manual to understand?

    1 difficult, 2 somewhat hard, 3 fairly easy, 4 easy, 5 very easy

  4. Number of Patients Who Were Observed to Have an Adverse Event

    Time frame: Day one, immediately

    While using the device, the patients were observed by the research coordinator for any of the following adverse events to occur:

    • bloody nose
    • being sprayed in the eye with the saline
    • vomiting after the procedure
    • choking during or after the procedure
    • other

  5. Number of Patients Experiencing a Physical Injury During Use

    Time frame: Day one, immediately

    After the procedure, the patient was directly examined for any of the following:

    • bleeding from the nostrils
    • disruption of the skin around the nose
    • increased work of breathing/respiratory distress (increased respiratory rate, increased respiratory accessory muscle use)

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Aardvark Medical Company

Industry

Registry information

Important dates

Study start
2009
Primary completion
2009
Study completion
2009
First posted
May 25, 2010
Registry last updated
Aug 3, 2010

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.