ClinicalTrials.Veeva

Menu

Hemodynamic Responses of Different Laryngoscopes

I

Istanbul University

Status and phase

Completed
Phase 4

Conditions

Blood Pressures
Heart Rate and Rhythm Disorders
Oxygen Disorders

Treatments

Device: Mc-Coy laryngoscope
Device: McGrath videolaryngoscope
Device: C-Mac videolaryngoscope
Device: Macintosh laryngoscope

Study type

Interventional

Funder types

Other

Identifiers

NCT02469363
2014/1191

Details and patient eligibility

About

During laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation, stimulation of supraglottic regions leads to an increase in the plasma catecholamine concentrations due to the activation of the sympatho-adrenal system. Prevention or reduction of this increment is important for hemodynamic control. Therefore, various methods such as providing adequate depth of anesthesia and shortening the time of laryngoscopy were used. On the other hand; alternative laryngoscopy devices and techniques have recently started to be used.

In this randomized single blind study, the aim is to compare the hemodynamic responses of four different laryngoscopy techniques with Macintosh laryngoscope, McCoy laryngoscope, C-Mac videolaryngoscope and McGrath videolaryngoscope in patients with normal predictive airway.

Full description

During laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation, stimulation of supraglottic regions leads to an increase in the plasma catecholamine concentrations due to the activation of the sympatho-adrenal system. Prevention or reduction of this increment is important for hemodynamic control. Therefore, various methods such as providing adequate depth of anesthesia and shortening the time of laryngoscopy were used. On the other hand; alternative laryngoscopy devices and methods have recently started to be used.

In this randomized single blind study, our aim is to compare the hemodynamic responses of four different laryngoscopy techniques with Macintosh laryngoscope, McCoy laryngoscope, C-Mac videolaryngoscope and McGrath videolaryngoscope in patients with normal predictive airway.

After obtaining Institutional Ethics Committee approval and patient consents, 170 patients (18-65 years old) with ASA I-II status requiring general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation, were enrolled to this prospective randomized study.

Besides routine monitorization (noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP), electrocardiography (ECG), heart rate (HR), peripheral oxygen saturation (SPO2)), continuous BIS monitorization was also performed. Sedation was performed using a standard dose of IV fentanyl (1.5 μg/kg) and midazolam (0.05 mg/kg). Baseline systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressures, HR and SPO2 values were recorded as T0. After a stabilization period of 10 minutes, propofol 2-3 mg/kg IV bolus was applied incrementally until a clinically desirable sedation level was achieved. If necessary, additional propofol boluses were given to maintain a BIS level of 60. As soon as BIS level was reduced to 60, patients were put on 0.6 mg/kg IV rocuronium. 100% oxygen was applied with a facemask for a period of 3 minutes. Then, post induction values (T1) were recorded.

One hundred seventy patients were randomly allocated equally to Macintosh laryngoscope, Mc-Coy laryngoscope, C-Mac videolaryngoscope and McGrath videolaryngoscope groups. Endotracheal tube (ETT) of 7.0 mm and 7.5 mm were placed to female and male patients, respectively. All intubation procedures were performed by a single experienced anesthesiologist. Intubation stylet was provided, if necessary. Cuff pressures of endotracheal tubes were standartized to 30 cmH2O via a manometer. The following measurements were recorded immediately after intubation (T2) and at one minute intervals for 5 minutes (T3, T4, T5, T6 and T7).

Moreover; the number of intubation attempts, stylet needs, Cormack-Lehane scales, and the complications occurred during intubation procedures were recorded as the second outcomes. Patients were also questioned for possible sore throat at postoperative 2 hours. Patients requiring more than one attempt to achieve successful intubation were excluded from statistical analysis of data.

Enrollment

170 patients

Sex

All

Ages

18 to 65 years old

Volunteers

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients with ASA I-II status, requiring general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation

Exclusion criteria

  • ASA status higher than II, a history or suspected of difficult airway, hypertansion, under treatment known to affect blood pressure or heart rate (Beta blocker/ Ca-channel blocker), BIS value > 60

Trial design

Primary purpose

Screening

Allocation

Randomized

Interventional model

Parallel Assignment

Masking

Single Blind

170 participants in 4 patient groups

Macintosh laryngoscope
Active Comparator group
Description:
Endotracheal intubation with classic (Macintosh) laryngoscope
Treatment:
Device: Macintosh laryngoscope
Mc-Coy laryngoscope
Active Comparator group
Description:
Endotracheal intubation with Mc-Coy laryngoscope
Treatment:
Device: Mc-Coy laryngoscope
C-Mac videolaryngoscope
Active Comparator group
Description:
Endotracheal intubation with C-Mac videolaryngoscope
Treatment:
Device: C-Mac videolaryngoscope
McGrath videolaryngoscope
Active Comparator group
Description:
Endotracheal intubation with McGrath videolaryngoscope
Treatment:
Device: McGrath videolaryngoscope

Trial contacts and locations

1

Loading...

Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov

Clinical trials

Find clinical trialsTrials by location
© Copyright 2026 Veeva Systems