General Anesthesia With Endotracheal Intubation in SurgeryMASKNCT02018146
Cohort 2 Efficacy of Nasopharyngeal Ventilation With Endotracheal Tube for Surgery
A study testing Mask then nasopharyngeal and Nasopharyngeal then mask in people with General Anesthesia With Endotracheal Intubation in Surgery, run by University of Louisville at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Failed mask ventilation poses an increased risk of de-oxygenation to the patient undergoing general anesthesia. Nasopharyngeal ventilation may be a valid alternative for mask ventilation allowing for better oxygenation during the induction phase of general anesthesia. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- General Anesthesia With Endotracheal Intubation in Surgery
- What is being tested?
- Mask then nasopharyngeal and Nasopharyngeal then mask
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 41 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Jun 2015to May 2018
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Subjects undergoing general anesthesia and require endotracheal intubation.
- Adults patients 18 years or greater
- Subjects are capable of understanding and signing the Informed Consent Form or have an acceptable representative capable of giving legally authorized consent on their behalf.
- Meet three or more of predictive difficult to mask criteria as listed:
- Age = or > than 55
- BMI = or > than 30
Show all 13Show fewer
- Edentulism
- History of snoring and/or a diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea
- STOP/BANG score of three or greater
- Presesnce or a beard or mustach that covers the part of the face in conntact with the facemask edges
- Male gender
- History of neck radiation
- Mallampati score of III or IV
Who cannot join
- Subjects will be excluded from this study in cases where there will not be an attempt at mask ventilation. This includes patients that will require an awake fiberoptic intubation as well as those needing a rapid sequence intubation.
- Subjects with full stomachs, known hiatal hernia, and severe gastroesophageal reflux will be excluded.
- Subjects with known or suspected basilar skull fractures will be excluded.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky, 40202
About this study
Official title: Cohort 2 Efficacy of Nasopharyngeal Ventilation With Endotracheal Tube for Patients With Predicted Difficult to Mask Ventilate
Failed mask ventilation poses an increased risk of de-oxygenation to the patient undergoing general anesthesia. Nasopharyngeal ventilation may be a valid alternative for mask ventilation allowing for better oxygenation during the induction phase of general anesthesia. Oxygenation may be maintained better in case of difficult mask ventilation. This study evaluates this alternative method in comparison with the standard method of mask ventilation.
General Design This is a randomized, controlled, cross over study. Patients will be randomized to mask ventilation followed by nasopharyngeal airway placement and ventilation or vice versa.
Primary Study Endpoints We will test the hypothesis that ventilation via a nasally placed ETT is superior in its efficacy (as measured by tidal volume) to routine facemask ventilation in patients undergoing general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation for their surgery.
Read the detailed description
General Design This is a randomized, controlled, cross over study. Patients will be randomized to mask ventilation followed by nasopharyngeal airway placement and ventilation or vice versa.
Primary Study Endpoints In cohort 2 we will test the hypothesis that ventilation via a nasally placed ETT is superior in its efficacy (as measured by tidal volume) to routine facemask ventilation in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation for general anesthesia. In cohort 1 the patient population was restricted to patients undergoing oto-laryngologic or oral maxillofacial surgery that required nasal intubation.
Subject Selection and Withdrawal General Characteristics of the Proposed Subject Population
Subjects will be enrolled at the University Pre-Op clinic or the University Pre-Op holding area. There is no data indicating that ethnicity affects airway management. We accordingly will accept patients from all minority groups. Based on the population of greater Louisville, we expect that 85% of the subjects will be Caucasian. We will include male and female patients in the study.
Anticipated Number of Research Subjects In cohort two we are planning to enroll 20 patients scheduled for endotracheal intubation and general anesthesia with their surgery. Patients will qualify for enrollment in the study if they meet the inclusion criteria as defined.
Inclusion Criteria
- Subjects undergoing general anesthesia and require endotracheal intubation.
- Adults patients 18 years or greater
- Subjects are capable of understanding and signing the Informed Consent Form or have an acceptable representative capable of giving legally authorized consent on their behalf.
- Meet three or more of predictive difficult to mask criteria as listed:
- Age = or > than 55
- BMI = or > than 30
- Edentulism
- History of snoring and/or a diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea
- STOP/BANG score of three or greater
- Presesnce or a beard or mustach that covers the part of the face in conntact with the facemask edges
- Male gender
- History of neck radiation
- Mallampati score of III or IV
Exclusion Criteria I. Subjects will be excluded from this study in cases where there will not be an attempt at mask ventilation. This includes patients that will require an awake fiberoptic intubation as well as those needing a rapid sequence intubation.
II. Subjects with full stomachs, known hiatal hernia, and severe gastroesophageal reflux will be excluded.
III. Subjects with known or suspected basilar skull fractures will be excluded.
Subject Recruitment and Screening Subjects will be recruited by review of cases listed on the draft daily operating room schedule and schedule for pre-operative clinic at the University of Louisville hospital.
The study is confined to a short period at induction of anesthesia.
Visit 1 Screening Visit - at the screening visit subjects will undergo an airway exam.
Visit 2 Visit - Based on the screening results subject will be enrolled in to the study and randomized to one of the study groups. Immediately after randomization subject's nares will be prepped with two sprays of nasal decongestant bilaterally. NeoSynephrine nasal 0.5% spray will be used. Subject will be transferred to the OR.
Safety Assessments Routine anesthesia parameters (tidal volume, train of four, heart rate, oxygen saturation, end-tidal carbon dioxide, chest rise and BIS monitor) will be used to evaluate the safety of the proposed ventilation methods.
Effectiveness Assessments Tidal volume, train of four, heart rate, oxygen saturation, end-tidal carbon dioxide and chest rise will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the study treatment Assessment of how difficult facemask ventilation actually was will use the method described by Warters(7). The Warters scale assigns points based on escalating levels of intervention necessary to ventilate the lungs. Additionally, the Warters scale accounts for situations in which a poor quality mask seal inhibits mask ventilation.
Sample Size Determination Preliminary data have shown that nasopharyngeal ventilation may improve applied tidal volumes compared to mask ventilation. Sample size analysis: a within-group difference of 50 ml tidal volume will be considered to be clinically significant in our study, because such difference will be equivalent to a 10% increase in tidal volume during naso-pharyngeal ventilation. Accordingly, per our a priori assessment, in order to detect an increase of 10% of tidal volume 16 patients will be required with 90% power at a significance level of 0.05. We propose to enroll 20 patients for this cross-over trial.
Statistical Methods Tidal volumes and airway pressures will be compared with paired T-tests. Data will be expressed as mean ± SD. Descriptive parameters and categorical variables will be compared using Chi-square tests.
- Being tested
- Mask then nasopharyngeal, Nasopharyngeal then mask
- Keywords
- Laryngeal Masks, Airway Management
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Mask then nasopharyngealOther
Patients will be randomly assigned to Mask ventilation followed by naso-pharyngeal ventilation
Nasopharyngeal then maskOther
Patients will be randomly assigned to naso-pharyngeal ventilation followed by mask ventilation.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Nasopharyngeal then mask | Other | Patients will be randomized to nasopharyngeal airway placement and ventilation followed by mask ventilation Receives: Other: Nasopharyngeal then mask |
| Mask then nasopharyngeal | Other | Patients will be randomized to mask ventilation followed by nasopharyngeal airway placement and ventilation Receives: Other: Mask then nasopharyngeal |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Tidal volume
After facemask or nasopharyngeal ventilation
Measured: 15 minutes
Secondary outcomes (1)
Airway pressure
Measured: 3 min after facemask or nasopharyngeal ventilation
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted23 Dec 2013 (estimated)
- Study startJun 2015
- Primary completion15 Feb 2018
- Study completionMay 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for General Anesthesia With Endotracheal Intubation in SurgeryStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of LouisvilleThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 41 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Louisville
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Rainer Lenhardt, University of Louisville
- Investigators
- Rainer Lenhardt, MD, Principal investigator, University of Louisville School of Medicine
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02018146
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 13.0570
- Acronym
- MASK
- Status last verified
- Jul 2019
- First submitted
- 29 Oct 2013
- Last updated
- 30 Jul 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Peterson GN, Domino KB, Caplan RA, Posner KL, Lee LA, Cheney FW. Management of the difficult airway: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 2005 Jul;103(1):33-9. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200507000-00009.
PubMed 15983454Domino KB, Posner KL, Caplan RA, Cheney FW. Airway injury during anesthesia: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 1999 Dec;91(6):1703-11. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199912000-00023.
PubMed 10598613Bund M, Walz R, Lobbes W, Seitz W. A tube in the pharynx for emergency ventilation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1997 Apr;41(4):529-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1997.tb04736.x.
PubMed 9150784Langeron O, Masso E, Huraux C, Guggiari M, Bianchi A, Coriat P, Riou B. Prediction of difficult mask ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2000 May;92(5):1229-36. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200005000-00009.
PubMed 10781266Han R, Tremper KK, Kheterpal S, O'Reilly M. Grading scale for mask ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2004 Jul;101(1):267. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200407000-00059. No abstract available.
PubMed 15220820Kheterpal S, Han R, Tremper KK, Shanks A, Tait AR, O'Reilly M, Ludwig TA. Incidence and predictors of difficult and impossible mask ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2006 Nov;105(5):885-91. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200611000-00007.
PubMed 17065880Warters RD, Szabo TA, Spinale FG, DeSantis SM, Reves JG. The effect of neuromuscular blockade on mask ventilation. Anaesthesia. 2011 Mar;66(3):163-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06601.x. Epub 2011 Jan 25.
PubMed 21265818
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 30 Jul 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Cohort 2 Efficacy of Nasopharyngeal Ventilation With Endotracheal Tube for Patients With Predicted Difficult to Mask Ventilate
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02018146
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- MASK / 13.0570
- Keywords
- Laryngeal Masks, Airway Management
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 41 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of LouisvilleUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jun 2015
- Primary completion
- 15 Feb 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- May 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 23 Dec 2013 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Failed mask ventilation poses an increased risk of de-oxygenation to the patient undergoing general anesthesia. Nasopharyngeal ventilation may be a valid alternative for mask ventilation allowing for better oxygenation during the induction phase of general anesthesia. Oxygenation may be maintained better in case of difficult mask ventilation. This study evaluates this alternative method in comparison with the standard method of mask ventilation.
General Design This is a randomized, controlled, cross over study. Patients will be randomized to mask ventilation followed by nasopharyngeal airway placement and ventilation or vice versa.
Primary Study Endpoints We will test the hypothesis that ventilation via a nasally placed ETT is superior in its efficacy (as measured by tidal volume) to routine facemask ventilation in patients undergoing general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation for their surgery.
Detailed description
General Design This is a randomized, controlled, cross over study. Patients will be randomized to mask ventilation followed by nasopharyngeal airway placement and ventilation or vice versa.
Primary Study Endpoints In cohort 2 we will test the hypothesis that ventilation via a nasally placed ETT is superior in its efficacy (as measured by tidal volume) to routine facemask ventilation in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation for general anesthesia. In cohort 1 the patient population was restricted to patients undergoing oto-laryngologic or oral maxillofacial surgery that required nasal intubation.
Subject Selection and Withdrawal General Characteristics of the Proposed Subject Population
Subjects will be enrolled at the University Pre-Op clinic or the University Pre-Op holding area. There is no data indicating that ethnicity affects airway management. We accordingly will accept patients from all minority groups. Based on the population of greater Louisville, we expect that 85% of the subjects will be Caucasian. We will include male and female patients in the study.
Anticipated Number of Research Subjects In cohort two we are planning to enroll 20 patients scheduled for endotracheal intubation and general anesthesia with their surgery. Patients will qualify for enrollment in the study if they meet the inclusion criteria as defined.
Inclusion Criteria
- Subjects undergoing general anesthesia and require endotracheal intubation.
- Adults patients 18 years or greater
- Subjects are capable of understanding and signing the Informed Consent Form or have an acceptable representative capable of giving legally authorized consent on their behalf.
- Meet three or more of predictive difficult to mask criteria as listed:
- Age = or > than 55
- BMI = or > than 30
- Edentulism
- History of snoring and/or a diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea
- STOP/BANG score of three or greater
- Presesnce or a beard or mustach that covers the part of the face in conntact with the facemask edges
- Male gender
- History of neck radiation
- Mallampati score of III or IV
Exclusion Criteria I. Subjects will be excluded from this study in cases where there will not be an attempt at mask ventilation. This includes patients that will require an awake fiberoptic intubation as well as those needing a rapid sequence intubation.
II. Subjects with full stomachs, known hiatal hernia, and severe gastroesophageal reflux will be excluded.
III. Subjects with known or suspected basilar skull fractures will be excluded.
Subject Recruitment and Screening Subjects will be recruited by review of cases listed on the draft daily operating room schedule and schedule for pre-operative clinic at the University of Louisville hospital.
The study is confined to a short period at induction of anesthesia.
Visit 1 Screening Visit - at the screening visit subjects will undergo an airway exam.
Visit 2 Visit - Based on the screening results subject will be enrolled in to the study and randomized to one of the study groups. Immediately after randomization subject's nares will be prepped with two sprays of nasal decongestant bilaterally. NeoSynephrine nasal 0.5% spray will be used. Subject will be transferred to the OR.
Safety Assessments Routine anesthesia parameters (tidal volume, train of four, heart rate, oxygen saturation, end-tidal carbon dioxide, chest rise and BIS monitor) will be used to evaluate the safety of the proposed ventilation methods.
Effectiveness Assessments Tidal volume, train of four, heart rate, oxygen saturation, end-tidal carbon dioxide and chest rise will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the study treatment Assessment of how difficult facemask ventilation actually was will use the method described by Warters(7). The Warters scale assigns points based on escalating levels of intervention necessary to ventilate the lungs. Additionally, the Warters scale accounts for situations in which a poor quality mask seal inhibits mask ventilation.
Sample Size Determination Preliminary data have shown that nasopharyngeal ventilation may improve applied tidal volumes compared to mask ventilation. Sample size analysis: a within-group difference of 50 ml tidal volume will be considered to be clinically significant in our study, because such difference will be equivalent to a 10% increase in tidal volume during naso-pharyngeal ventilation. Accordingly, per our a priori assessment, in order to detect an increase of 10% of tidal volume 16 patients will be required with 90% power at a significance level of 0.05. We propose to enroll 20 patients for this cross-over trial.
Statistical Methods Tidal volumes and airway pressures will be compared with paired T-tests. Data will be expressed as mean ± SD. Descriptive parameters and categorical variables will be compared using Chi-square tests.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Nasopharyngeal then mask | Other | Other: Nasopharyngeal then maskPatients will be randomized to nasopharyngeal airway placement and ventilation followed by mask ventilation |
| Mask then nasopharyngeal | Other | Other: Mask then nasopharyngealPatients will be randomized to mask ventilation followed by nasopharyngeal airway placement and ventilation |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (13 listed)
- Subjects undergoing general anesthesia and require endotracheal intubation.
- Adults patients 18 years or greater
- Subjects are capable of understanding and signing the Informed Consent Form or have an acceptable representative capable of giving legally authorized consent on their behalf.
- Meet three or more of predictive difficult to mask criteria as listed:
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Subjects will be excluded from this study in cases where there will not be an attempt at mask ventilation. This includes patients that will require an awake fiberoptic intubation as well as those needing a rapid sequence intubation.
- Subjects with full stomachs, known hiatal hernia, and severe gastroesophageal reflux will be excluded.
- Subjects with known or suspected basilar skull fractures will be excluded.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Mask then nasopharyngealPatients will be randomly assigned to Mask ventilation followed by naso-pharyngeal ventilation | Other | Mask then nasopharyngeal |
| Nasopharyngeal then maskPatients will be randomly assigned to naso-pharyngeal ventilation followed by mask ventilation. | Other | Nasopharyngeal then mask |
Primary outcome
Tidal volume
Time frame: 15 minutes
After facemask or nasopharyngeal ventilation
1 secondary outcome
Airway pressure
Time frame: 3 min after facemask or nasopharyngeal ventilation
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 30 Jul 2019.
- Background: PubMed 15983454Peterson GN, Domino KB, Caplan RA, Posner KL, Lee LA, Cheney FW. Management of the difficult airway: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 2005 Jul;103(1):33-9. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200507000-00009.
- Background: PubMed 10598613Domino KB, Posner KL, Caplan RA, Cheney FW. Airway injury during anesthesia: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 1999 Dec;91(6):1703-11. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199912000-00023.
- Background: PubMed 9150784Bund M, Walz R, Lobbes W, Seitz W. A tube in the pharynx for emergency ventilation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1997 Apr;41(4):529-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1997.tb04736.x.
- Background: PubMed 10781266Langeron O, Masso E, Huraux C, Guggiari M, Bianchi A, Coriat P, Riou B. Prediction of difficult mask ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2000 May;92(5):1229-36. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200005000-00009.
- Background: PubMed 15220820Han R, Tremper KK, Kheterpal S, O'Reilly M. Grading scale for mask ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2004 Jul;101(1):267. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200407000-00059. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 17065880Kheterpal S, Han R, Tremper KK, Shanks A, Tait AR, O'Reilly M, Ludwig TA. Incidence and predictors of difficult and impossible mask ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2006 Nov;105(5):885-91. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200611000-00007.
- Background: PubMed 21265818Warters RD, Szabo TA, Spinale FG, DeSantis SM, Reves JG. The effect of neuromuscular blockade on mask ventilation. Anaesthesia. 2011 Mar;66(3):163-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06601.x. Epub 2011 Jan 25.
Related trials for General Anesthesia With Endotracheal Intubation in Surgery
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Emergence Delirium、fBFI-ENO Score (Extraversion + Neuroticism - Openness) Based on the Fast Big Five Personality Scale-10、An Adult Patient With ASAI-III Who is Scheduled for Elective Non-cardiac Surgery and is to Undergo General Anesthesia With Tracheal Intubation
Emergence Delirium, Anesthesia
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Rainer Lenhardt, MD principal investigator
University of Louisville School of Medicine
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Mask then nasopharyngeal and Nasopharyngeal then mask in people with General Anesthesia With Endotracheal Intubation in Surgery, run by University of Louisville at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 13 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 30 Jul 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Tidal volume (time frame: 15 minutes). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02018146, which also lists 7 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 30 Jul 2019.