VivaSight Double Lumen Tube for Single Lung Ventilation
The VivaSight Double Lumen Tube Versus Conventional Double Lumen Tube in Thoracic Surgical Patients
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Texas
-
Dallas, Texas, United States, 75235
- Parkland Health & Hospital System
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
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)
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: OTHER
- Allocation: RANDOMIZED
- Interventional Model: PARALLEL
- Masking: SINGLE
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: Conventional Double Lumen Tube
Patient will be intubated with conventional double lumen endotracheal tube for single lung ventilation during thoracic surgery.
|
Patient will be intubated with Mallinckrodt Double Lumen endotracheal tube for single lung ventilation during thoracic surgery
|
|
EXPERIMENTAL: VivaSight Double Lumen Tube
Patient will be intubated with VivaSight double lumen endotracheal tube for single lung ventilation during thoracic surgery.
|
Patient will be intubated with the VivaSight double lumen endotracheal tube with an integrated camera for single lung ventilation during thoracic surgery
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Number of Participants Requiring Flexible Fiberoptic Bronchoscopy
Time Frame: Intraoperative, within the time the double lumen was in the trachea
|
The number of participants requiring flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy during double-lumen tube intubation for a single lung ventilation.
|
Intraoperative, within the time the double lumen was in the trachea
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
The Intubation Time
Time Frame: Intraoperative, time to successfully intubate patient.
|
The time required to place double lumen endotracheal tube for a single lung intubation
|
Intraoperative, time to successfully intubate patient.
|
|
Number of Participants With Malposition
Time Frame: Intraoperative, within the time the double lumen was in the trachea
|
The number of participants with malposition of double lumen tube for a single lung intubation
|
Intraoperative, within the time the double lumen was in the trachea
|
|
The Cost of Double Lumen Tube Intubation
Time Frame: Intraoperative
|
Intraoperative
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- 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.
- 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.
- Wong DL, Baker CM. Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr Nurs. 1988 Jan-Feb;14(1):9-17. No abstract available.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. Erratum In: Pediatrics. 2011 Nov;128(5):1004.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (ACTUAL)
Study Start
Primary Completion (ACTUAL)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (ACTUAL)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (ACTUAL)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- STU-2018-0098
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.