N/A
N=623
GlideScope Versus Direct Laryngoscope for Emergency Intubation
Oral Intubation
Bottom Line
View on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01235065 ↗Enrolled (actual)
623
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Jun 2023
Primary outcome: Primary: Number of Participants Who Survived to Hospital Discharge — 296; 275 Participants
Study Design & Population
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- N/A
- Interventions
- type of laryngoscope (Device)
- Age
- Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
- Sex
- All
- Sponsor
- University of Maryland, Baltimore
- Primary completion
- Nov 2016
Outcome Measures
| Outcome | Result | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| PRIMARY Number of Participants Who Survived to Hospital Discharge |
296; 275 | — |
| SECONDARY Length of Time to Perform the Intubation Procedure |
40; 56 | — |
Summary
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.
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- require emergency intubation
Exclusion Criteria
- age < 18
- require surgical airway on initial assessment
- have known or strongly suspected spinal cord injury
Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01235065). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.