Skip to content

Supraglottic Airway Devices in Pediatric Difficult Airway Situations

Comparison of Three Different Supraglottic Airway Devices and Endotracheal Intubation in Pediatric Difficult Airway Situations in a Manikin

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02572232
Enrollment
40
Registered
2015-10-08
Start date
2016-09-01
Completion date
2017-12-31
Last updated
2018-08-16

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

Conditions

Airway Morbidity, Emergencies

Brief summary

The purpose of the study is to compare three supraglottic airway devices (Combitube, Easytube, laryngeal mask airway) to endotracheal intubation in a simulated difficult airway scenario in a pediatric manikin.

Detailed description

Supraglottic airway devices (SAD) have been designed for the cannot intubate, cannot ventilate scenario in prehospital as well as intrahospital settings and are utilized in medical emergency services and emergency departments all over the world, not only for anticipated and unanticipated difficult airway situations but also as an airway device used by non-anesthesiologists or in situations where only limited practice is possible. Securing an airway in a pediatric emergency situation is crucial. Unfortunately, pediatricians usually lack the required skills and regular practice to perform endotracheal intubation (ETI, which is the gold standard for securing an airway) quickly and safely. SADs would pose a safe and feasible alternative to ETI. However, no studies on this topic are available. The investigators therefore wanted to evaluate three different SADs (Combitube, Easytube, laryngeal mask airway) in simulated difficult airway situations in a pediatric manikin in comparison to ETI.

Interventions

DEVICECombitube, Easytube, Laryngeal masks

Supraglottic airway device

Sponsors

Medical University of Vienna
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* pediatricians * residents * interns * written informed consent form

Exclusion criteria

* none

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Time to successful ventilation1 min

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Success rate1 min
Rating of the device (questionnaire)1 minquestionnaire, ratings from 1 (best) to 5 (worst)
Re-assessment of success rate after 3 months3 months
Re-assessment of time to successful ventilation after 3 months3 months

Outcome results

None listed

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