At a glance
ClinicalIndex Comparison RecordStandardized by ClinicalIndex from the ClinicalTrials.gov record · verify against the source.
DirEct Versus VIdeo LaryngosCopE Trial
In Brief
A clinical study evaluating Video Laryngoscope and Direct Laryngoscope for Acute Respiratory Failure. Completed, enrolled 1,420 participants across 12 sites.
Detailed Summary
Clinicians perform rapid sequence induction, laryngoscopy, and tracheal intubation for more than 5 million critically ill adults as a part of clinical care each year in the United States. Failure to intubate the trachea on the first attempt occurs in more than 10% of all tracheal intubation procedures performed in the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU). Improving clinicians rate of intubation on the first attempt could reduce the risk of serious procedural complications. In current clinical practice, two classes of laryngoscopes are commonly used to help clinicians view the larynx while intubating the trachea: a video laryngoscope (equipped with a camera and a video screen) and a direct laryngoscope (not equipped with a camera or video screen). For nearly all laryngoscopy and intubation procedures performed in current clinical practice, clinicians use either a video or a direct laryngoscope. Prior research has shown that use of a video laryngoscope improves the operator's view of the larynx compared to a direct laryngoscope. Whether use of a video laryngoscope increases the likelihood of successful intubation on the first attempt remains uncertain. A better understanding of the comparative effectiveness of these two common, standard-of-care approaches to laryngoscopy and intubation could improve the care clinicians deliver and patient outcomes.
Study Details
Timeline
Interventions
Laryngoscope with a camera and a video screen
Laryngoscope without a camera or a video screen