AzTrials
AzTrials

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.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

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
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

Other trials in United States

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

  1. Subjects undergoing general anesthesia and require endotracheal intubation.
  2. Adults patients 18 years or greater
  3. 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.
  4. Meet three or more of predictive difficult to mask criteria as listed:
  5. Age = or > than 55
  6. BMI = or > than 30
  7. Edentulism
  8. History of snoring and/or a diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea
  9. STOP/BANG score of three or greater
  10. Presesnce or a beard or mustach that covers the part of the face in conntact with the facemask edges
  11. Male gender
  12. History of neck radiation
  13. 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 groups in NCT02018146
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Nasopharyngeal then maskOtherPatients will be randomized to nasopharyngeal airway placement and ventilation followed by mask ventilation
Receives: Other: Nasopharyngeal then mask
Mask then nasopharyngealOtherPatients 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.

  1. Tidal volume

    After facemask or nasopharyngeal ventilation

    Measured: 15 minutes

Secondary outcomes (1)
  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.

  1. First posted23 Dec 2013 (estimated)
  2. Study startJun 2015
  3. Primary completion15 Feb 2018
  4. Study completionMay 2018

Resources

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)
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 15983454
  • Domino 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 10598613
  • Bund 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 9150784
  • Langeron 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 10781266
  • Han 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 15220820
  • Kheterpal 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 17065880
  • Warters 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

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.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in