Clinical trial NCT03690284: VivaSight Double Lumen Tube for Single Lung Ventilation
Official title: The VivaSight Double Lumen Tube Versus Conventional Double Lumen Tube in Thoracic Surgical Patients
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: COMPLETED
Phase: NA
Conditions: Double Lumen Endotracheal Tube
Single Lung Ventilation
Lead sponsor: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2018-10-01
Enrollment: 50
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Maximum age (years): 90
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: yes
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Primary purpose: OTHER

Brief summary: This prospective, randomized, comparative study is intended to enroll a total of 50 patients undergoing thoracic surgery that necessitates single lung ventilation. The efficacy and performance of the VivaSight DLT will be compared to the conventional double lumen tube. Use of fiberoptic bronchoscopy for initial tube positioning and subsequently during the case will be recorded. The attending thoracic surgeon will judge the quality of lung deflation. The occurrence of any malposition and subsequent maneuvers will be recorded. A standardized anesthetic protocol that is usual and customary for the type of operation the patient is having will be provided to the anesthesia teams of enrolled subjects. The remainder of the anesthetic care of the subject will not deviate from the standard of care.


Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* 18-90 years old
* Scheduled for a thoracic surgery that requires single lung ventilation
* Willing and able to consent in English or Spanish

Exclusion Criteria:

* Age less than 18 or older than 90
* Patient does not speak English or Spanish
* Patient refusal
* Pregnant or nursing women
* Known or suspected difficult airway
* Contraindication for left sided double lumen tube (e.g, L bronchial mass)

Primary outcomes:
measure: Number of Participants Requiring Flexible Fiberoptic Bronchoscopy
timeFrame: Intraoperative, within the time the double lumen was in the trachea
Secondary outcomes:
measure: The Intubation Time
timeFrame: Intraoperative, time to successfully intubate patient.
measure: Number of Participants With Malposition
timeFrame: Intraoperative, within the time the double lumen was in the trachea
measure: The Cost of Double Lumen Tube Intubation
timeFrame: Intraoperative
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Dallas
country: United States
facility: Parkland Health & Hospital System
state: Texas
Study officials:
affiliation: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
name: Tiffany Moon, MD
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References:
citation: Campos JH, Hallam EA, Ueda K. Training in placement of the left-sided double-lumen tube among non-thoracic anaesthesiologists: intubation model simulator versus computer-based digital video disc, a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011 Mar;28(3):169-74. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e328340c332.
citation: Campos JH. Which device should be considered the best for lung isolation: double-lumen endotracheal tube versus bronchial blockers. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2007 Feb;20(1):27-31. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0b013e3280111e2a.
citation: Klein U, Karzai W, Bloos F, Wohlfarth M, Gottschall R, Fritz H, Gugel M, Seifert A. Role of fiberoptic bronchoscopy in conjunction with the use of double-lumen tubes for thoracic anesthesia: a prospective study. Anesthesiology. 1998 Feb;88(2):346-50. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199802000-00012.
citation: Schuepbach R, Grande B, Camen G, Schmidt AR, Fischer H, Sessler DI, Seifert B, Spahn DR, Ruetzler K. Intubation with VivaSight or conventional left-sided double-lumen tubes: a randomized trial. Can J Anaesth. 2015 Jul;62(7):762-9. doi: 10.1007/s12630-015-0329-8. Epub 2015 Feb 6.
citation: Porhomayon J, Papadakos P, Singh A, Nader ND. Alteration in respiratory physiology in obesity for anesthesia-critical care physician. HSR Proc Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth. 2011;3(2):109-18.
citation: Royse CF, Newman S, Chung F, Stygall J, McKay RE, Boldt J, Servin FS, Hurtado I, Hannallah R, Yu B, Wilkinson DJ. Development and feasibility of a scale to assess postoperative recovery: the post-operative quality recovery scale. Anesthesiology. 2010 Oct;113(4):892-905. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181d960a9.
citation: Amorim P, Lagarto F, Gomes B, Esteves S, Bismarck J, Rodrigues N, Nogueira M. Neostigmine vs. sugammadex: observational cohort study comparing the quality of recovery using the Postoperative Quality Recovery Scale. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014 Oct;58(9):1101-10. doi: 10.1111/aas.12389. Epub 2014 Sep 1.
citation: Wong DL, Baker CM. Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr Nurs. 1988 Jan-Feb;14(1):9-17. No abstract available.
citation: Baxter AL, Watcha MF, Baxter WV, Leong T, Wyatt MM. Development and validation of a pictorial nausea rating scale for children. Pediatrics. 2011 Jun;127(6):e1542-9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-1410. Epub 2011 May 29.
citation: Doufas AG, Bakhshandeh M, Bjorksten AR, Greif R, Sessler DI. Automated responsiveness test (ART) predicts loss of consciousness and adverse physiologic responses during propofol conscious sedation. Anesthesiology. 2001 Apr;94(4):585-92. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200104000-00010.
citation: Chattopadhyay S, Das A, Nandy S, RoyBasunia S, Mitra T, Halder PS, Chhaule S, Mandal SK. Postoperative Sore Throat Prevention in Ambulatory Surgery: A Comparison between Preoperative Aspirin and Magnesium Sulfate Gargle - A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Study. Anesth Essays Res. 2017 Jan-Mar;11(1):94-100. doi: 10.4103/0259-1162.186602.
citation: Reiter R, Hoffmann TK, Pickhard A, Brosch S. Hoarseness-causes and treatments. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015 May 8;112(19):329-37. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2015.0329.