Airway ObstructionNCT03969147
Investigation of a Novel Oropharyngeal Airway: The ManMaxAirway
A study testing ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct, Guedel Oropharyngeal airway adjunct and No airway adjunct in people with Airway Obstruction and Respiratory Complication, run by University of Vermont at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Guedel pattern or oropharyngeal airways (OPA) maintain an open oral airway in unconscious or semi-conscious patients by preventing the tongue from covering the epiglottis, but OPA placement carries a risk of inducing gag reflex and vomiting. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Airway Obstruction, Respiratory Complication
- What is being tested?
- ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct, Guedel Oropharyngeal airway adjunct and No airway adjunct
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- May 2016to 30 Jun 2019
- 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
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Healthy volunteers over the age of 18.
Who cannot join
- For Tolerability arm: History of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, dental implants or dental prostheses
- For the MRI arm, the following were further exclusion criteria as dictated by institutional MRI safety protocols: claustrophobia, cerebral aneurysm clip, nerve stimulation device, cochlear/middle ear implant, transdermal patches, known metal in body (to include IUD), intraventricular shunt, implanted pumps or stents, pregnant, metal implants, cardiac pacemaker, Swan Ganz catheter, metal worker occupation, history of eye injury with metal.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
University of Vermont College of Medicine
Burlington, Vermont, 05401
Rejeanne Jalbert, BA, 802-656-4216, rejeanne.jalbert@med.uvm.edu
About this study
Guedel pattern or oropharyngeal airways (OPA) maintain an open oral airway in unconscious or semi-conscious patients by preventing the tongue from covering the epiglottis, but OPA placement carries a risk of inducing gag reflex and vomiting. Although various sizes are available, the design of the OPA has undergone little change since its introduction in the 1920s. The purpose of this study is to determine the utility of a novel airway device, the ManMaxAirway (MMA), as an alternative to the OPA.
Read the detailed description
Oropharyngeal airways are simple devices placed in the mouth that help to maintain an open oral airway in anesthetized or otherwise unconscious or semi-conscious patients and also help to facilitate assisted ventilation with a bag and mask. The current standard of care, the Guedel airway, was originally designed by Dr. Arthur Guedel in 1933 and has remained essentially unchanged since its inception. It is a narrow, curved plastic tube which slides over the tongue to lie in the back of the throat. While this device has withstood the test of time, proving to be largely safe and effective, it is known to have several drawbacks: 1) it is not held securely in place in the mouth which allows it to become easily mal-positioned or expelled, 2) it often triggers a gag reflex in even minimally conscious patients limiting its utility in emergency and prehospital settings, 3) there are case reports of serious complication and injury as a result of the poor fit and retention of the Guedel airway including aspiration and injury to the tongue, posterior pharynx, and teeth, and 4) the Guedel airway's narrow and rigid construction make it unsuitable for patients who may clench their teeth, such as in patients who are seizing.
The purpose of this study is to obtain preliminary data to help determine the utility of the ManMaxAirway (MMA) for ventilation and that will aid in future study designs for the device. The MMA is a novel oral airway that is similar in size and shape to an athletic mouth guard, and which fits between and is held in place by the teeth (or gums of the edentulous patient). The external portion of the airway contains a flange in the front which remains anterior to the teeth, allowing for ventilation in a similar fashion to the Guedel airway. It also has a central lumen that divides posterior to the flange into two lateral passages, such that air passes through the U-shaped device to the posterior-lateral aspect of the tongue behind the back teeth. Unlike the Guedel device, it makes little contact with the tongue and does not protrude into the posterior pharynx. Instead, the device will - in theory - force the mandible to rest slightly anterior to the maxilla: this slight mandible-maxilla displacement (similar to that achieved via the jaw thrust technique) will theoretically allow for a better opening of the airway without requiring direct depression of the tongue. We hypothesize that the ManMaxAirway will maintain a viable airway and allow for adequate ventilation of patients while demonstrating the following advantages over the Guedel airway: 1) improved tolerability and ease of insertion with decreased gag reflex stimulation in conscious patients 2) ability to act as a bite block in patients actively seizing or likely to seize.
Our proposed study will include two major aims in assessing the utility of the MMA. Our first aim will be to assess the mechanical effect of the device on the oropharyngeal anatomy. We will obtain MRI images of several healthy volunteers, with and without the MMA in place, in order to observe any displacement of the mandible relative to the maxilla, and any changes in positioning of the tongue. We will also assess the physical performance characteristics of the MMA vs. Guedel in terms of flow resistance in the simulation laboratory. Our second aim will be to determine whether there is any difference in tolerability between the Man Max Airway and the Guedel airway. To address the second aim we propose a crossover study using conscious, healthy volunteers, in which subjects will be asked to place each device in their mouth, one after the other. We will document the elapsed time and the number of breaths that subjects are able to take with each device in place (up to one minute), and will obtain ratings of device discomfort from each subject using a visual analog scale. We will also measure resistance to forced oscillatory airflow in a subset of subjects, with and without the airway in place, at a second visit.
- Conditions
- Airway Obstruction, Respiratory Complication
- Being tested
- ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct, Guedel Oropharyngeal airway adjunct, No airway adjunct
- Medical subject headings
- Airway Obstruction
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunctDevice
Healthy volunteers will self-place the ManMaxAirway.
Guedel Oropharyngeal airway adjunctDevice
Healthy volunteers will self-place the standard Guedel OPA.
No airway adjunctDevice
Healthy volunteers will have no airway adjunct in place.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| MRI Comparison | Active comparator | MRI images will be obtained of the airways of healthy volunteers both with the ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct and with no airway adjunct in place in order to observe any changes to the airway anatomy caused by placement of the airway adjunct. The order of the scans (with and without airway adjunct) will be determined by randomization software in advance. Receives: Device: ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct; Device: No airway adjunct |
| Tolerability Comparison | Experimental | Healthy volunteers will self-place either the ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct or the Guedel Oropharyngeal airway adjunct, which will be left in place for an interval of one minute, while supervised by research staff. After completing a questionnaire and resting for a timed interval, they will then self-place the other airway adjunct, which will be left in place for the same length of time as the first, before completing another questionnaire. The order in which the devices are placed by each subject will be determined in advance via computer randomization. Receives: Device: ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct; Device: Guedel Oropharyngeal airway adjunct |
| Forced Oscillation | Active comparator | Volunteers from the tolerability comparison arm will also be invited as a subset of subjects to participate in a measurement of resistance to forced oscillation. The volunteers will be subject to forced oscillations in a pulmonary function lab with the ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct in place and with no airway adjunct in order to observe changes in resistance to oscillatory airflow Receives: Device: ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct; Device: No airway adjunct |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Ability to place the Novel Airway Adjunct
Any inability of conscious, healthy volunteers to place the device (MMA) in their mouth will be recorded.
Measured: 1 minute (During tolerability comparison experiment)
Secondary outcomes (5)
Displacement of the mandibular condyle and the condylar fossa apex (MRI arm)
A radiologist will measure displacement (mm) between the mandibular condyle and condylar fossa apex using MRI on healthy subjects with and without the device (MMA) in place.
Measured: 2-3 weeks following MRI scans.
Number of respirations with airway adjunct in place (Tolerability Arm)
Recorded by research staff while healthy subject has airway adjunct (either MMA or OPA) in place.
Measured: 1 minute (During tolerability comparison experiment)
Elapsed time (up to 60 seconds) that subject is able to tolerate having the airway adjunct in place (Tolerability Arm)
Recorded by research staff while healthy subject has airway adjunct (either MMA or OPA) in place.
Measured: 1 minute (During tolerability comparison experiment.)
Visual Analog Tolerability
100 mm line that subjects will use to mark level of discomfort for each device (MMA or OPA), with 0mm correlating to complete tolerability with no discomfort and 100mm correlating to completely intolerable discomfort.
Measured: 1 minute (following tolerability comparison experiment.)
Resistance to oscillatory air flow
Airflow resistance (cmH20·s/L) of the two devices (MMA and OPA) will be compared using forced oscillations measured in a pulmonary lab.
Measured: 1 minute (Assessment done following physical lab tests)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted31 May 2019
- Study startMay 2016
- Primary completion30 Jun 2019 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Jun 2019 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Airway ObstructionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Vermont
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Kalev Freeman, University of Vermont
- Investigators
- Kalev Freeman, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Vermont Department of Surgery
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03969147
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CHRMS 16-105
- Status last verified
- May 2019
- First submitted
- 16 Feb 2018
- Last updated
- 31 May 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 31 May 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Investigation of a Novel Oropharyngeal Airway: The ManMaxAirway
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03969147
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CHRMS 16-105
- Conditions
- Airway Obstruction, Respiratory Complication
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of VermontUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- May 2016
- Primary completion
- 30 Jun 2019 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Jun 2019 (estimated)
- First posted
- 31 May 2019 (actual)
- 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.
Guedel pattern or oropharyngeal airways (OPA) maintain an open oral airway in unconscious or semi-conscious patients by preventing the tongue from covering the epiglottis, but OPA placement carries a risk of inducing gag reflex and vomiting. Although various sizes are available, the design of the OPA has undergone little change since its introduction in the 1920s. The purpose of this study is to determine the utility of a novel airway device, the ManMaxAirway (MMA), as an alternative to the OPA.
Detailed description
Oropharyngeal airways are simple devices placed in the mouth that help to maintain an open oral airway in anesthetized or otherwise unconscious or semi-conscious patients and also help to facilitate assisted ventilation with a bag and mask. The current standard of care, the Guedel airway, was originally designed by Dr. Arthur Guedel in 1933 and has remained essentially unchanged since its inception. It is a narrow, curved plastic tube which slides over the tongue to lie in the back of the throat. While this device has withstood the test of time, proving to be largely safe and effective, it is known to have several drawbacks: 1) it is not held securely in place in the mouth which allows it to become easily mal-positioned or expelled, 2) it often triggers a gag reflex in even minimally conscious patients limiting its utility in emergency and prehospital settings, 3) there are case reports of serious complication and injury as a result of the poor fit and retention of the Guedel airway including aspiration and injury to the tongue, posterior pharynx, and teeth, and 4) the Guedel airway's narrow and rigid construction make it unsuitable for patients who may clench their teeth, such as in patients who are seizing.
The purpose of this study is to obtain preliminary data to help determine the utility of the ManMaxAirway (MMA) for ventilation and that will aid in future study designs for the device. The MMA is a novel oral airway that is similar in size and shape to an athletic mouth guard, and which fits between and is held in place by the teeth (or gums of the edentulous patient). The external portion of the airway contains a flange in the front which remains anterior to the teeth, allowing for ventilation in a similar fashion to the Guedel airway. It also has a central lumen that divides posterior to the flange into two lateral passages, such that air passes through the U-shaped device to the posterior-lateral aspect of the tongue behind the back teeth. Unlike the Guedel device, it makes little contact with the tongue and does not protrude into the posterior pharynx. Instead, the device will - in theory - force the mandible to rest slightly anterior to the maxilla: this slight mandible-maxilla displacement (similar to that achieved via the jaw thrust technique) will theoretically allow for a better opening of the airway without requiring direct depression of the tongue. We hypothesize that the ManMaxAirway will maintain a viable airway and allow for adequate ventilation of patients while demonstrating the following advantages over the Guedel airway: 1) improved tolerability and ease of insertion with decreased gag reflex stimulation in conscious patients 2) ability to act as a bite block in patients actively seizing or likely to seize.
Our proposed study will include two major aims in assessing the utility of the MMA. Our first aim will be to assess the mechanical effect of the device on the oropharyngeal anatomy. We will obtain MRI images of several healthy volunteers, with and without the MMA in place, in order to observe any displacement of the mandible relative to the maxilla, and any changes in positioning of the tongue. We will also assess the physical performance characteristics of the MMA vs. Guedel in terms of flow resistance in the simulation laboratory. Our second aim will be to determine whether there is any difference in tolerability between the Man Max Airway and the Guedel airway. To address the second aim we propose a crossover study using conscious, healthy volunteers, in which subjects will be asked to place each device in their mouth, one after the other. We will document the elapsed time and the number of breaths that subjects are able to take with each device in place (up to one minute), and will obtain ratings of device discomfort from each subject using a visual analog scale. We will also measure resistance to forced oscillatory airflow in a subset of subjects, with and without the airway in place, at a second visit.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| MRI Comparison | Active comparator | Device: ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct, Device: No airway adjunctMRI images will be obtained of the airways of healthy volunteers both with the ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct and with no airway adjunct in place in order to observe any changes to the airway anatomy caused by placement of the airway adjunct. The order of the scans (with and without airway adjunct) will be determined by randomization software in advance. |
| Tolerability Comparison | Experimental | Device: ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct, Device: Guedel Oropharyngeal airway adjunctHealthy volunteers will self-place either the ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct or the Guedel Oropharyngeal airway adjunct, which will be left in place for an interval of one minute, while supervised by research staff. After completing a questionnaire and resting for a timed interval, they will then self-place the other airway adjunct, which will be left in place for the same length of time as the first, before completing another questionnaire. The order in which the devices are placed by each subject will be determined in advance via computer randomization. |
| Forced Oscillation | Active comparator | Device: ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct, Device: No airway adjunctVolunteers from the tolerability comparison arm will also be invited as a subset of subjects to participate in a measurement of resistance to forced oscillation. The volunteers will be subject to forced oscillations in a pulmonary function lab with the ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct in place and with no airway adjunct in order to observe changes in resistance to oscillatory airflow |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Healthy volunteers over the age of 18.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- For Tolerability arm: History of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, dental implants or dental prostheses
- For the MRI arm, the following were further exclusion criteria as dictated by institutional MRI safety protocols: claustrophobia, cerebral aneurysm clip, nerve stimulation device, cochlear/middle ear implant, transdermal patches, known metal in body (to include IUD), intraventricular shunt, implanted pumps or stents, pregnant, metal implants, cardiac pacemaker, Swan Ganz catheter, metal worker occupation, history of eye injury with metal.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunctHealthy volunteers will self-place the ManMaxAirway. | Device | Forced Oscillation, MRI Comparison, Tolerability Comparison |
| Guedel Oropharyngeal airway adjunctHealthy volunteers will self-place the standard Guedel OPA. | Device | Tolerability Comparison |
| No airway adjunctHealthy volunteers will have no airway adjunct in place. | Device | Forced Oscillation, MRI Comparison |
Primary outcome
Ability to place the Novel Airway Adjunct
Time frame: 1 minute (During tolerability comparison experiment)
Any inability of conscious, healthy volunteers to place the device (MMA) in their mouth will be recorded.
5 secondary outcomes
Displacement of the mandibular condyle and the condylar fossa apex (MRI arm)
Time frame: 2-3 weeks following MRI scans.
Number of respirations with airway adjunct in place (Tolerability Arm)
Time frame: 1 minute (During tolerability comparison experiment)
Elapsed time (up to 60 seconds) that subject is able to tolerate having the airway adjunct in place (Tolerability Arm)
Time frame: 1 minute (During tolerability comparison experiment.)
Visual Analog Tolerability
Time frame: 1 minute (following tolerability comparison experiment.)
Resistance to oscillatory air flow
Time frame: 1 minute (Assessment done following physical lab tests)
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 31 May 2019.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Airway Obstruction
RecruitingPhase 2
A Study to Learn About the Study Medicine Called PF-07275315 in People With Moderate-To-Severe Asthma
Asthma
Not yet recruiting
Influence of Patient Positioning During Nasal Lavage
Acute Upper Respiratory Tract Infections, Nasal Obstruction
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Interstitial Photodynamic Therapy Following Palliative Radiotherapy in Treating Patients With Inoperable Malignant Central Airway Obstruction
Malignant Solid Neoplasm
Recruiting
Pharyngeal Mucosal Conditioning to Prevent Postoperative Sore Throat in Septoplasty Patients With Severe Nasal Obstruction
Postoperative Sore Throat, Nasal Obstruction
Active, not recruitingObservational study
A Prospective Study Comparing VivAer to Alternative Surgical Procedures to Treat Nasal Airway Obstruction in Patients With Nasal Valve Dysfunction.
Nasal Airway Obstruction
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.
Kalev Freeman, MD, PhD principal investigator
University of Vermont Department of Surgery
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing ManMaxAirway oropharyngeal airway adjunct, Guedel Oropharyngeal airway adjunct and No airway adjunct in people with Airway Obstruction and Respiratory Complication, run by University of Vermont 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 1 inclusion and 2 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 31 May 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?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Zachary Miller, BA (8026568372, zdmiller@uvm.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Ability to place the Novel Airway Adjunct (time frame: 1 minute (During tolerability comparison experiment)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 31 May 2019.