At a glance
ClinicalIndex Comparison RecordStandardized by ClinicalIndex from the ClinicalTrials.gov record · verify against the source.
A Comparison of the King Vision® Channeled, King Vision® Non-Channeled, and Glidescope® Video Intubation Systems in Patients at Risk for Difficult Intubation - A Pilot Study
In Brief
A clinical study evaluating Video laryngoscopes for Airway Management. Completed, enrolled 225 participants.
Detailed Summary
There are several advantages of video laryngoscopy; especially their ability to provide superior glottis visualization, as compared to traditional laryngoscopy.1-3 The purpose of this three arm study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the King Vision® Video Intubation Systems (AMBU-King Systems, Denmark) to the Cobalt GlideScope® (Verathon Medical Inc., USA) in patients with anticipated difficult airways.
Study Details
Timeline
Interventions
Patients were randomized into one of the three groups through a computer generated randomization schedule. Patients in group A (N= 75) will be intubated using the GlideScope® AVL, patients in group B (N= 75) will be intubated using the King Vision Channeled VL; patients in group C (N=75) will be intubated using the King Vision Video Laryngoscope with Standard (non-channeled) Blade. Patients will only be tested with one device. All patients will be intubated using a conventional ETT.