N/A
N=41
RIFL (Rigid and Flexing Laryngoscope) vs. Fiberoptic Bronchoscope
Intubation; Difficult
Bottom Line
View on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01965938 ↗Enrolled (actual)
41
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Jan 2017
Primary outcome: Primary: Time Until Proper Endotracheal Tube Placement — 49; 64 seconds
Study Design & Population
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- N/A
- Interventions
- RIFL (Rigid and Flexing Laryngoscope) (Device); Fiberoptic Bronchoscope (Device)
- Age
- Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
- Sex
- All
- Sponsor
- Vanderbilt University
- Primary completion
- Jul 2013
Outcome Measures
| Outcome | Result | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| PRIMARY Time Until Proper Endotracheal Tube Placement |
49; 64 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Participants With Successful Intubation |
20; 20 | — |
| SECONDARY Number of Attempts Performed During Airway Management |
1.1; 1.2 | — |
| SECONDARY Grade of Glottic View |
— | — |
| SECONDARY Assistance Maneuvers, if Any, Provided by the Attending Anesthesiologist |
2; 16 | — |
| SECONDARY Lowest Pulse Oximetry Saturation Value Reading During Intubation |
100; 100 | — |
| SECONDARY Alternate Device Used |
0; 0 | — |
Summary
We will conduct a randomized trial comparing the success rate and time to intubation using the RIFL vs. the fiberoptic bronchoscope, as the latter is commonly held to be the gold standard of difficult airway devices. Specifically, we wish to compare the of intubation between the two devices in patients with potentially difficult airways as defined by an oropharyngeal class 3-4, BMI greater than 35, or in patients with a history of difficult intubation using direct laryngoscopy.
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
Patients with known or suspected difficult airways defined as:
- patients with an oropharyngeal score of 3 or 4
- patients whose body mass index calculates greater to or equal to 35
Exclusion Criteria
- Patients who necessitate an awake fiberoptic intubation or a rapid sequence intubation.
Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01965938). 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.