Skip to content

Comparison of Direct Laryngoscopy, Truview EVO2 and Glidescope in Pediatric Patients

Comparison of Direct Laryngoscopy, Truview EVO2 and Glidescope in Pediatric Patients

Status
Terminated
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01023568
Enrollment
134
Registered
2009-12-02
Start date
2009-12-31
Completion date
2011-05-31
Last updated
2017-02-02

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Intubation

Keywords

intubation, pediatric, videolaryngoscope devices

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two novel videolaryngoscope systems, the Glidescope and the Truview PCD against standard direct laryngoscopy (DL) in pediatric patients. The investigators primary hypothesis is that the use of videolaryngoscope devices, Glidescope and Truview provide better laryngeal views in pediatric patients as measured by Cormack and ehane (C&L) (1 to 4, 4 the worst), without increasing the time taken to intubate (TTI), compared with direct laryngoscopy (DL). The investigators secondary hypotheses are that the use of Glidescope and Truview PCD provoke less hemodynamic response and fewer episodes of de-saturation in pediatric patients.

Detailed description

Advances in airway management have led to development on videolaryngoscopy devices including the Glidescope® (Verathon Inc, Bothwell, USA), the AWD® (Pentax Corporation, Tokio, Japan) and most recently the Truview PCD (Truphatek International Ltd, Netanya, Israel). The use of videolaryngoscopy devices in adults have demonstrated some advantages including, minimal trauma on the airway and better view of the glottis. The Glidescope is designed with a 60º angle and a camera on the inferior aspect just at the inflection point. The view is obtained anteriorly and the camera is located remote from the glottis providing a good visual field. The video image is displayed on a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD), with electronic recording available. Despite a good experience using Glidescope in adults, few studies have been published in pediatric patients. Kim et al. in a randomized study comparing the use of Glidescope with direct laryngoscopy in children, demonstrated better or equal laryngoscopic view with longer time for intubation using the Glidescope.

Interventions

Intubation with Macintosh blade laryngoscope

DEVICEGlidescope

Intubation with Glidescope laryngoscope.

Intubation with Truview PCD laryngoscope.

Sponsors

The Cleveland Clinic
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
No minimum to 10 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* ASA physical status I-III * elective general surgical procedures * from 0-10 years-old

Exclusion criteria

* increase intracranial pressure * history of severe gastrointestinal reflux * sore throat * upper respiratory airway infection * known or suspected difficult airway or coagulopathy

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Time to Successfully Intubate Patient.from start of intubation to successfully intubated up to 5 minutes

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Mean Hemodynamic Response: Heart Ratemeasured at 1 minute interval at induction time and from intubation for 10 minutes.
Mean Hemodynamic Response: Mean Arterial Blood Pressuremeasured at 1 minute interval at induction time and from intubation for 10 minutes
Cormack-Lehane Gradeimmediately after intubation
Number of Participants Who Experienced Desaturationmeasured at 1 minute interval at induction time and from intubation for 10 minutes.Desaturation was defined as SpO2 less than 90% at induction time or any time from intubation to 10 minutes after

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Macintosh Blade
Intubation with Macintosh blade laryngoscope Macintosh blade: Intubation with Macintosh blade laryngoscope
45
Glidescope
Intubation with Glidescope laryngoscope Glidescope: Intubation with Glidescope laryngoscope.
44
Truview PCD
Intubation with the Truview PCD laryngoscope Truview PCD: Intubation with Truview PCD laryngoscope.
45
Total134

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicMacintosh BladeGlidescopeTruview PCDTotal
Age, Continuous4.0 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.8
4.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.7
5.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.8
4.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.8
ASA physical status
I: A normal healthy patient
19 participants20 participants19 participants58 participants
ASA physical status
II: A patient with mild systemic disease
24 participants23 participants25 participants72 participants
ASA physical status
III: A patient with severe systemic disease
2 participants1 participants1 participants4 participants
Body mass index17 kg/m216 kg/m216 kg/m216.5 kg/m2
Gender
Female
16 Participants11 Participants14 Participants41 Participants
Gender
Male
29 Participants33 Participants31 Participants93 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 450 / 440 / 45
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 450 / 440 / 45

Outcome results

Primary

Time to Successfully Intubate Patient.

Time frame: from start of intubation to successfully intubated up to 5 minutes

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Macintosh BladeTime to Successfully Intubate Patient.23 seconds
GlidescopeTime to Successfully Intubate Patient.39 seconds
Truview PCDTime to Successfully Intubate Patient.44 seconds
p-value: >0.9995% CI: [7, 26]Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
p-value: >0.9995% CI: [6, 28]Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Secondary

Cormack-Lehane Grade

Time frame: immediately after intubation

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Macintosh BladeCormack-Lehane Grade4: Neither glottis nor epiglottis seen0 participants
Macintosh BladeCormack-Lehane Grade3: Only epiglottis seen, none of glottis seen5 participants
Macintosh BladeCormack-Lehane Grade1: Full view of glottis34 participants
Macintosh BladeCormack-Lehane Grade2: Partial view of glottis6 participants
GlidescopeCormack-Lehane Grade1: Full view of glottis6 participants
GlidescopeCormack-Lehane Grade2: Partial view of glottis13 participants
GlidescopeCormack-Lehane Grade3: Only epiglottis seen, none of glottis seen23 participants
GlidescopeCormack-Lehane Grade4: Neither glottis nor epiglottis seen2 participants
Truview PCDCormack-Lehane Grade3: Only epiglottis seen, none of glottis seen1 participants
Truview PCDCormack-Lehane Grade1: Full view of glottis37 participants
Truview PCDCormack-Lehane Grade2: Partial view of glottis7 participants
Truview PCDCormack-Lehane Grade4: Neither glottis nor epiglottis seen0 participants
Comparison: The Cormack-Lehane grade with a grade 1 (best grade) to 4 (worst grade) was analyzed as an ordinal outcome.p-value: >0.9995% CI: [1, 2]Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: The Cormack-Lehane grade with a grade 1 (best grade) to 4 (worst grade) was analyzed as an ordinal outcome.p-value: 0.1895% CI: [0, 0]Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Secondary

Mean Hemodynamic Response: Heart Rate

Time frame: measured at 1 minute interval at induction time and from intubation for 10 minutes.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Macintosh BladeMean Hemodynamic Response: Heart Rate126 beats/minStandard Deviation 21
GlidescopeMean Hemodynamic Response: Heart Rate127 beats/minStandard Deviation 15
Truview PCDMean Hemodynamic Response: Heart Rate128 beats/minStandard Deviation 18
p-value: 0.26ANOVA
Secondary

Mean Hemodynamic Response: Mean Arterial Blood Pressure

Time frame: measured at 1 minute interval at induction time and from intubation for 10 minutes

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Macintosh BladeMean Hemodynamic Response: Mean Arterial Blood Pressure62 mmHgStandard Deviation 12
GlidescopeMean Hemodynamic Response: Mean Arterial Blood Pressure63 mmHgStandard Deviation 9
Truview PCDMean Hemodynamic Response: Mean Arterial Blood Pressure66 mmHgStandard Deviation 12
p-value: 0.28ANOVA
Secondary

Number of Participants Who Experienced Desaturation

Desaturation was defined as SpO2 less than 90% at induction time or any time from intubation to 10 minutes after

Time frame: measured at 1 minute interval at induction time and from intubation for 10 minutes.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Macintosh BladeNumber of Participants Who Experienced Desaturation1 participants
GlidescopeNumber of Participants Who Experienced Desaturation0 participants
Truview PCDNumber of Participants Who Experienced Desaturation1 participants
p-value: >0.99Chi-squared

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026