Conventional versus video-assisted laryngoscopy for perioperative endotracheal intubation (COVALENT) - a randomized, controlled multicenter trial.
Airway management
Anaesthesiology
Human factors
Intubation
Laryngoscopy
Patient safety
Video-assisted laryngoscopy
Journal
BMC anesthesiology
ISSN: 1471-2253
Titre abrégé: BMC Anesthesiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968535
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 04 2023
18 04 2023
Historique:
received:
17
11
2022
accepted:
06
04
2023
medline:
20
4
2023
pubmed:
19
4
2023
entrez:
18
04
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Data on the routine use of video-assisted laryngoscopy in peri-operative intubations are rather inconsistent and ambiguous, in part due to small populations and non-uniform outcome measures in past trials. Failed or prolonged intubation procedures are a reason for relevant morbidity and mortality. This study aims to determine whether video-assisted laryngoscopy (with both Macintosh-shaped and hyperangulated blades) is at least equal to the standard method of direct laryngoscopy with respect to the first-pass success rate. Furthermore, validated tools from the field of human factors will be applied to examine within-team communication and task load during this critical medical procedure. In this randomized, controlled, three-armed parallel group design, multi-centre trial, a total of more than 2500 adult patients scheduled for perioperative endotracheal intubation will be randomized. In equally large arms, video-assisted laryngoscopy with a Macintosh-shaped or a hyperangulated blade will be compared to the standard of care (direct laryngoscopy with Macintosh blade). In a pre-defined hierarchical analysis, we will test the primary outcome for non-inferiority first. If this goal should be met, the design and projected statistical power also allow for subsequent testing for superiority of one of the interventions. Various secondary outcomes will account for patient safety considerations as well as human factors interactions within the provider team and will allow for further exploratory data analysis and hypothesis generation. This randomized controlled trial will provide a solid base of data in a field where reliable evidence is of major clinical importance. With thousands of endotracheal intubations performed every day in operating rooms around the world, every bit of performance improvement translates into increased patient safety and comfort and may eventually prevent significant burden of disease. Therefore, we feel confident that a large trial has the potential to considerably benefit patients and anaesthetists alike. ClincalTrials.gov NCT05228288. 1.1, November 15, 2021.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Data on the routine use of video-assisted laryngoscopy in peri-operative intubations are rather inconsistent and ambiguous, in part due to small populations and non-uniform outcome measures in past trials. Failed or prolonged intubation procedures are a reason for relevant morbidity and mortality. This study aims to determine whether video-assisted laryngoscopy (with both Macintosh-shaped and hyperangulated blades) is at least equal to the standard method of direct laryngoscopy with respect to the first-pass success rate. Furthermore, validated tools from the field of human factors will be applied to examine within-team communication and task load during this critical medical procedure.
METHODS
In this randomized, controlled, three-armed parallel group design, multi-centre trial, a total of more than 2500 adult patients scheduled for perioperative endotracheal intubation will be randomized. In equally large arms, video-assisted laryngoscopy with a Macintosh-shaped or a hyperangulated blade will be compared to the standard of care (direct laryngoscopy with Macintosh blade). In a pre-defined hierarchical analysis, we will test the primary outcome for non-inferiority first. If this goal should be met, the design and projected statistical power also allow for subsequent testing for superiority of one of the interventions. Various secondary outcomes will account for patient safety considerations as well as human factors interactions within the provider team and will allow for further exploratory data analysis and hypothesis generation.
DISCUSSION
This randomized controlled trial will provide a solid base of data in a field where reliable evidence is of major clinical importance. With thousands of endotracheal intubations performed every day in operating rooms around the world, every bit of performance improvement translates into increased patient safety and comfort and may eventually prevent significant burden of disease. Therefore, we feel confident that a large trial has the potential to considerably benefit patients and anaesthetists alike.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClincalTrials.gov NCT05228288.
PROTOCOL VERSION
1.1, November 15, 2021.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37072702
doi: 10.1186/s12871-023-02083-3
pii: 10.1186/s12871-023-02083-3
pmc: PMC10111720
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05228288']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
128Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011 May 17;11:32
pubmed: 21586166
J Clin Anesth. 2009 Jun;21(4):268-71
pubmed: 19502032
Anesth Analg. 2004 Aug;99(2):607-13, table of contents
pubmed: 15271750
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 15;11:CD011136
pubmed: 27844477
Anaesthesia. 2017 Dec;72(12):1532-1541
pubmed: 28940354
J Clin Anesth. 2006 Aug;18(5):357-62
pubmed: 16905081
Can J Anaesth. 2021 May;68(5):706-714
pubmed: 33512660
BMC Anesthesiol. 2019 Apr 4;19(1):47
pubmed: 30947694
Anaesthesist. 2015 Nov;64(11):859-73
pubmed: 26519189
Anaesthesia. 2013 Aug;68(8):817-25
pubmed: 23682749
J Clin Anesth. 2018 Jun;47:21-26
pubmed: 29549828
Br J Anaesth. 2015 Dec;115(6):827-48
pubmed: 26556848
J Clin Anesth. 2018 Feb;44:69-75
pubmed: 29156438
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2012 Oct;107(7):521-30
pubmed: 22926584
Anaesthesia. 1998 Nov;53(11):1041-4
pubmed: 10023271
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2013 Apr;30(4):163-9
pubmed: 23274619
Simul Healthc. 2007 Spring;2(1):4-10
pubmed: 19088602
BMC Anesthesiol. 2019 May 15;19(1):75
pubmed: 31092191
J Intensive Care Med. 2011 Jan-Feb;26(1):50-6
pubmed: 21262753
Br J Anaesth. 2011 May;106(5):617-31
pubmed: 21447488
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017 Jul;34(7):408-410
pubmed: 28582362
Br J Anaesth. 2018 Feb;120(2):323-352
pubmed: 29406182
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2010 Jan;58(1):15-9
pubmed: 20498806
BMJ Qual Saf. 2011 Mar;20(3):216-22
pubmed: 21209142
Ann Surg. 2020 Apr;271(4):686-692
pubmed: 30247331