N/A
Completed N=200
Comparison of Ultrasound Techniques for Assessment of Endotracheal Tube Placement
Intubation; Difficult or Failed
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06656546 ↗
Enrolled (actual)
200
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
May 2026
Primary outcomePrimary: Correct Classification of Endotracheal Tube Position — 65; 66; 64 Participants
Summary
This study is a single-center, randomized clinical trial conducted in an emergency department on intubated patients with rapid sequence intubation. Two sonographers will independently verify the accuracy of the intubation site using the assigned intubation method (tracheal, lung-sliding, or diaphragm) according to the randomization sequence. Each sonographer will be blinded to the other verification methods (physical examination, end-tidal carbon dioxide) being used. The study's primary objective is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of different intubation techniques.
Outcome Measures
| Outcome | Result | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| PRIMARY Correct Classification of Endotracheal Tube Position |
65; 66; 64 | — |
| SECONDARY Endotracheal Intubation Confirmation Time |
4.6; 9.4; 13.4 | — |
| SECONDARY Sonographer Confidence |
4.68; 4.65; 4.65 | — |
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- Patients in the emergency department who require endotracheal intubation (ETI) based on the decision of the primary physician and are intubated using the rapid sequence intubation method.
- Patients aged >18 years will be included in the study.
Exclusion Criteria
- Pregnant patients.
- Patients with a history of neck or chest surgery that may interfere with ultrasound evaluation.
- Patients with cervical spine disease or a history of surgery that could affect diaphragmatic movement.
- Patients diagnosed conditions such as pneumothorax that could affect lung ultrasound results, or those in whom pneumothorax is detected upon further evaluation,
- Patients who, after being enrolled, withdraw consent either personally or through a relative.
Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06656546). 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.