Videolaryngoscopy vs Direct Laryngoscopy for Double Lumen Tube Lumen Tube Placement - A Multicentre Randomized-controlled Trial (VOLCANO Study) (VOLCANO)

June 13, 2024 updated by: Luca Brazzi

VideolaryngOscopy With Mc Grath™ vs Direct LaryngosCopy for the Positioning of A Double lumeN endOtracheal Tube (VOLCANO Study)

The general aim of the study is to observe whether the use of the Mc Grath™ videolaryngoscope instead of direct laryngoscopy can represent, as in the case of the single-lumen tube, an added value in the placement of the double-lumen tube for surgical procedures involving one-lung ventilation, making intubation on the first attempt more likely and quicker. Secondary objectives include evaluating the presence of an advantage of the Mc Grath™ videolaryngoscope over direct laryngoscopy for the correct placement of the double-lumen tube, the need for additional maneuvers during the intubation procedure, and the presence of intra- and post-procedural complications.

Study Overview

Status

Not yet recruiting

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Placement of the double-lumen tube (DLT) can be more challenging because the endobronchial tube is larger (thus worsening glottic view) and more rigid (increasing the risk of trauma and reducing maneuverability during placement). An anatomically easy airway can become more demanding when there's a need to place a double-lumen tube. Success rates and intubation times can vary significantly. The superiority of videolaryngoscopy (VLS) over direct laryngoscopy (DL) is clear regarding the placement of the single-lumen endotracheal tube (SLT). Its use is now "recommended" as the first attempt in anticipated difficult airways and "suggested" for all routine intubations. To date, 19 prospective randomized controlled trials have compared the effectiveness of six VLS devices for DLT intubation versus DL in patients with anticipated non-difficult airways. Key endpoints included glottic view, intubation time, success rate, intubation difficulty rating, incidence of malpositioning, postoperative sore throat, hoarseness, procedure-related complications, and intubation-related stress response. Apart from a superior glottic view with VLS compared to DL, consistent results have not emerged across different studies. This heterogeneity may be attributed to differences in the experience of the operators involved, the type of VLS used, and finally the definition of the primary endpoint. Conducting a randomized controlled study with adequate and larger sample size than previous ones and a homogeneous population can ascertain whether VLS can represent, as in the case of SLT, an added value in DLT placement, guiding clinicians towards its routine use.

It is worth noting that current guidelines on DLT intubation do NOT recommend the "1st choice" use of VLS, a recommendation already existing for SLT placement. For this reason, in clinical practice, both devices are effectively used interchangeably, largely based on individual clinician preferences, which moreover possess comparable expertise in both direct laryngoscopy and videolaryngoscopy.

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of a single videolaryngoscope, the Mc Grath™, versus direct laryngoscopy in placing the double-lumen tube in surgery.

Experimental design: Multicentric Randomized Controlled Trial Primary endpoint: evaluation of the advantage of the Mc Grath™ videolaryngoscope over direct laryngoscopy for double-lumen tube intubation.

Secondary endpoints: Evaluation of the advantage of the Mc Grath™ videolaryngoscope over direct laryngoscopy for intra- and post-procedural complications, need for additional maneuvers, and correct placement of the double-lumen tube.

Study duration: 24 months

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

750

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age > 18 years
  • General anesthesia
  • One-lung ventilation via double-lumen tube

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients who refuse to consent to participation in the study.
  • Patients scheduled for awake intubation due to pre-operative evaluation findings of predictors of difficult oxygenation that contraindicate intubation under general anesthesia.
  • Patients with anatomical anomalies leading to tracheal and/or laryngeal displacement/compression.
  • Patients with contraindications to double-lumen tube placement.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
No Intervention: VOLCANO - double lumen tube placement with direct laryngoscopy
Patients will receive double lumen tube placement with direct laryngoscopy
Active Comparator: VOLCANO - double lumen tube placement with videolaryngoscopy
Patients will receive double lumen tube placement with videolaryngoscopy
Use of Videolaryngoscope with Mc Grath versus direct laryngoscopy

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of partecipant with first pass intubation success
Time Frame: up to 1 hour
first pass intubation success of the Mc Grath™ videolaryngoscope over direct laryngoscopy for double-lumen tube intubation.
up to 1 hour

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Intubation-related complications
Time Frame: 24 hours
Evaluation of the advantage of the Mc Grath™ videolaryngoscope over direct laryngoscopy for intra- and post-procedural complications, need for additional maneuvers, and correct placement of the double-lumen tube.
24 hours

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Estimated)

July 2, 2024

Primary Completion (Estimated)

July 2, 2026

Study Completion (Estimated)

December 31, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

June 5, 2024

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 13, 2024

First Posted (Actual)

June 20, 2024

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

June 20, 2024

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 13, 2024

Last Verified

June 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 915.982

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

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.

Clinical Trials on Intubation Complication

Clinical Trials on Mc Grath Videolaryngoscope

Subscribe