GlideScope Versus Direct Laryngoscope for Emergency Intubation

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
The purpose of this study is to assess if the GlideScope video laryngoscope is superior to the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for definitive airway management in acutely-injured patients.

Detailed Description
-----------------
On admission to the emergency department following traumatic injury, many patients require placement of an artificial airway to support their breathing, provide oxygen and protect their airway. This procedure is accomplished through a number of different techniques and few studies have compared these techniques in order to establish the best method. We will compare an older technique using a metal handle and blade that allows for direct visualization of the vocal cords (direct laryngoscopy) to a newer technique that employs a fiberoptic bundle imbedded in a handle that allows indirect visualization of the vocal cords during placement of the artificial airway. The newer technique has the theoretical advantage of being more useful in patients with abnormal airways which are frequently encountered in trauma patients. Since both techniques are currently employed routinely in our institution, we will randomize all trauma admission to have an initial attempt with one of the two techniques in order to perform a randomized, unblinded trial.

Official Title
-----------------
GlideScope vs. Direct Laryngoscope for Emergency Intubation

Conditions
-----------------
Oral Intubation

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Device: type of laryngoscope


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: require emergency intubation Exclusion Criteria: age < 18 require surgical airway on initial assessment have known or strongly suspected spinal cord injury

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Treatment
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Active Comparator: direct laryngoscope<br>emergency intubation with direct laryngoscopy technique | Device: type of laryngoscope<br>* Patients who require emergency rapid sequence intubation are randomized to intubation with either the direct laryngoscope or the video laryngoscope<br>* Other names: Macintosh direct laryngoscope vs. GlideScope video laryngoscope;|
| Active Comparator: video laryngoscope<br>emergency intubation with video laryngoscopy technique | Device: type of laryngoscope<br>* Patients who require emergency rapid sequence intubation are randomized to intubation with either the direct laryngoscope or the video laryngoscope<br>* Other names: Macintosh direct laryngoscope vs. GlideScope video laryngoscope;|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Number of Participants Who Survived to Hospital Discharge | Assessment of whether or not the patient was discharged alive from the study center | 2 weeks, on average | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Length of Time to Perform the Intubation Procedure | How long (seconds) it takes the provider to perform the intubation procedure. | Up to 100 seconds | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
airway management, trauma, intubation