Phase 4
Completed N=198
Laryngoscope Versus CMAC for Endotracheal Intubation in Patients Undergoing Emergent Airway Management
Acute Respiratory Distress
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01710891 ↗
Enrolled (actual)
198
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Mar 2019
Primary outcomePrimary: First Pass Success in Patients Undergoing Emergency Intubation, Intubated With Either Direct Larynogoscopy or Video Laryngoscopy Using a C-MAC Device. — 86.3; 92.2 percentage of participants
◆ Published Evidence
Established
71citations · ~7 / year
Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy Using the C-MAC for Tracheal Intubation in the Emergency Department, a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Summary
Randomized controlled trial of intubation using the C-MAC video laryngoscope versus standard laryngoscopy. Patients who are going to be intubated using standard laryngoscopy will be randomized to have their first intubation attempt done using either standard laryngoscopy or the C-MAC video laryngoscope. Subsequent attempts will be at the discretion of the treating physician.
Linked Publications
-
Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy Using the C-MAC for Tracheal Intubation in the Emergency Department, a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Outcome Measures
| Outcome | Result | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| PRIMARY First Pass Success in Patients Undergoing Emergency Intubation, Intubated With Either Direct Larynogoscopy or Video Laryngoscopy Using a C-MAC Device. |
86.3; 92.2 | — |
| PRIMARY Time to Intubation |
58; 61 | — |
| SECONDARY Length of Stay |
9.1; 8.5 | — |
| SECONDARY Aspiration Pneumonia |
12.2; 7.2 | — |
| SECONDARY Incidence of Hypoxia |
27.3; 25.2 | — |
| SECONDARY Failed Intubation |
61.5; 25 | — |
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- Adult patients (age >17) requiring emergent endotracheal intubation in the Emergency Department using direct laryngoscopy
Exclusion Criteria
- Physician intends to intubate with a device other than a direct laryngoscope
Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01710891) and the linked publication. 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. Informational only — not medical advice.