Skip to content

Pre Hospital Evaluation of Video Laryngoscopy

Pre Hospital Evaluation of Video Laryngoscopy : a Comparative Study of Macintosh and GLIDESCOPE Ranger®

Status
Withdrawn
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01374061
Acronym
EVE
Enrollment
0
Registered
2011-06-15
Start date
2011-06-30
Completion date
2012-12-31
Last updated
2014-05-08

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

Conditions

Acute Post-trauma Stress State, Cardiac Arrest, Drug Toxicity, Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Shock, Trauma, Nervous System

Keywords

Emergency intubation, Glide scope Ranger, Pre hospital

Brief summary

The objective of this work is to compare standard intubation with video laryngoscope (Glide scope Ranger ) in French pre hospital multicentric study.

Detailed description

Introduction: In France, patients in critical status brought to hospital by emergency physicians and nurses experimented in tracheal intubation. It is an invasive act allowing a protection of airways and an optimal oxygenation of the patients in distress. The reference technique is the direct laryngoscopy by Macintosh . Corresponding data shows that a video laryngoscope - GLIDESCOPE laryngoscope - improve the conditions of intubation in the surgical unit thanks to a better display(visualization) of the opening. A derived device for pre hospital emergency units (GLIDESCOPE Ranger®) deserves to be compared with the classic laryngoscopy in emergency conditions. Objectives: compare the emergency intubation in Pre hospital meadow by Glide Scope Ranger with regard to the classic method Progress of the study: the patients will be included by emergency physicians working in out of hospital teams of 3 major hospitals of Paris. The patients will be randomized in 2 groups: 1 group classic laryngoscopy (group 1) and a group Glide scope Ranger (group 2). The score IDS will be compared for every group as well as the arisen of a complication during the procedure. The consent will be collected on the place or during the hospitalization.

Interventions

DEVICEClassical intubation

Classical intubation

DEVICEGLIDESCOPE

GLIDESCOPE intubation

Sponsors

Ministry of Health, France
CollaboratorOTHER_GOV
Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* patients of more than 18 years old * requiring an intubation * by medical out of hospital emergency operators * medical insurance * Consent signed

Exclusion criteria

* Age \<18, pregnant women * Refusal of consent or inability for understanding study * small mouth opening makes it impossible intubate

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
IDS score in each groupduring the intubation

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Dental or throat traumatismduring the intubation
Broncho/laryngospasmduring the intubation
Hypoxiaper intubation
Vomit / regurgitation or inhalation per-procedureduring the intubation
Inhalation pneumoniawithin 24 hours following the inclusion
Failure of intubateduring the intubation
Hemodynamic instabilityper intubation

Outcome results

None listed

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