MedTrace Logo

Conventional Intubation Versus VivaSight™-SL

NCT02837055 · Status: COMPLETED · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 54

Last updated 2018-01-23

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

It has been shown that videolaryngoscopy may be superior to direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in intensive care. Recently, an endotracheal tube with an integrated camera at its tip has been introduced (VivaSight-SL) allowing for direct visual confirmation of the tube's passage through the vocal cords during intubation.

Patients who are requiring urgent or endotracheal intubation in intensive care are randomized to receive either a conventional intubation with direct laryngoscopy or to receive intubation with the VivaSight-SL-Tube. Primary outcome measures are first attempt success rate and number of attempts to successful intubation.

Conditions

  • Respiratory Insufficiency

Interventions

DEVICE

VivaSight intubation

patients are intubated with an endotracheal tube with an integrated camera

DEVICE

conventional intubation

patients are intubated with a conventional endotracheal tube

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf

    lead OTHER

Principal Investigators

  • Stefan Kluge, MD, PhD · Head of Dept. of Intensive Care Medicine

Study Design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Model
PARALLEL

Eligibility

Min Age
18 Years
Sex
ALL
Healthy Volunteers
No

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2016-04-30
Primary Completion
2018-01-12
Completion
2018-01-12

Countries

  • Germany

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT02837055 on ClinicalTrials.gov