No registrations found.
ID
Source
Brief title
Health condition
Resuscitation requiring emergency endotracheal intubation
Sponsors and support
Erasmus Medical Center, Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC)
AmbulanceZorg Rotterdam Rijnmond
Intervention
Outcome measures
Primary outcome
First-time success
Secondary outcome
- Second-attempt success
- Time required for intubation
- Adverse events
- ROSC
Background summary
BACKGROUND
Literature shows that the rate of first-time success of emergency endotracheal intubation by ambulance nurses is highly variable; rates between 46 and 95% have been reported. Due to differences in device design, we hypothesize that the rate of first-time success can be improved when using videolaryngoscopy instead of direct laryngoscopy.
AIM
The primary aim of this prospective, observational study is to compare the rate of first-time success of intubation (by ambulance nurses) using videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy. Secondary aims are to assess the rate of second-attempt success, time required for intubation, rate of adverse events, and rate of ROSC after videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy, performed by ambulance nurses.
STUDY DESIGN
Observational study.
POPULATION
Patients requiring emergency endotracheal intubation.
INTERVENTION
Videolaryngoscopy
CONTROL
Direct laryngoscopy
ENDPOINTS
Primary outcome measure: first-time success.
Secondary outcome measures: second-attempt success, time required for intubation, adverse events, and ROSC.
Primary and secondary outcomes will be determined on-scene immediately after intubation.
RECRUITING COUNTRIES
The Netherlands
Study objective
We expect that video-assisted intubation (video laryngoscopy) by ambulance nurses will have a higher success rate than intubation with a classical intubation device (direct laryngoscopy).
Study design
On-scene, immediately after intubation
Intervention
Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy
's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam
M.H.J. Verhofstad
P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam
Rotterdam
The Netherlands
+31-10 7031050
m.verhofstad@erasmusmc.nl
's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam
M.H.J. Verhofstad
P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam
Rotterdam
The Netherlands
+31-10 7031050
m.verhofstad@erasmusmc.nl
Inclusion criteria
1. Patient requiring endotracheal intubation
2. GCS of 3 points, without suspected neurological injuries
3. Estimated age 18 years or older
Exclusion criteria
1. No CO2 production visible on capnogram, or no capnogram available
Design
Recruitment
Followed up by the following (possibly more current) registration
No registrations found.
Other (possibly less up-to-date) registrations in this register
No registrations found.
In other registers
| Register | ID |
|---|---|
| NTR-new | NL5582 |
| NTR-old | NTR6174 |
| Other | : MEC-2015-467 (METC Erasmus MC) |