Airway ManagementNCT05055401
Airway Management Skills Amongst Anesthesia Providers
An observational study of Airway Management, run by Prisma Health-Upstate at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficiency and proficiency of three common airway management techniques amongst among anesthesia providers who maintain airway management privileges in our health system. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Airway Management
- What is being tested?
- Direct Laryngoscopy, Laryngeal Mask Airways and Video Laryngoscopy
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 62 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 22 Oct 2021to 13 Nov 2025
- Phase
- Observational
- 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 Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: All employees of the respective anesthesia departments employed by Prisma Health will be offered participation in this study including: anesthesiologists (previously completed anesthesiology residency), certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNA), and anesthesia assistants (AA).
Who may be able to join
- Informed consent is obtained from the participant
- Participants are presently employed as an anesthesiologist (previously completed an anesthesiology residency), CRNA or AA at a participating institution
- Participants have active airway management privileges with their institution
Who cannot join
- Participants are not employed by their institution
- Refusal of the participant to sign a consent
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Proficiency and Efficiency of Airway Management Skills Amongst Anesthesia Providers: A Multicenter Baseline Assessment
The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficiency and proficiency of three common airway management techniques amongst among anesthesia providers who maintain airway management privileges in our health system.
Read the detailed description
Airway management may take place in a variety of settings with varying degrees of urgency, ranging from performance for elective operative procedures to life-threatening emergencies. An appropriate psychomotor skill set is needed to perform the procedures utilized for airway management, and the time required to do so may impact patient outcomes. Prolonged periods of apnea and accompanying hypoxia can lead to brain damage or death. This research is designed to evaluate the proficiency of anesthesia providers who are responsible for practicing airway management in hospitals or health systems in the United States, including Anesthesiologists, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists, and Anesthesiology Assistants. We are attempting to establish a baseline level of proficiency by quantifying the time it takes to achieve successful airway management and the number of attempts required to do so utilizing a high fidelity manikin programmed to simulate various physiological conditions. This baseline information could then be used to manage the decisions made by hospitals or health systems related to airway management in the future, or to redefine the policies and procedures established for performing these procedures.
- Conditions
- Airway Management
- Being tested
- Direct Laryngoscopy, Laryngeal Mask Airways, Video Laryngoscopy
- Keywords
- Airway Management, Intubation, High Fidelity Mannikin, Anesthesia Providers
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Direct LaryngoscopyProcedure or surgery
The participant will perform a direct laryngoscopy on a Laerdal SimMan 3G under healthy conditions and under limited cervical range of motion.
Laryngeal Mask AirwaysProcedure or surgery
The participant will perform LMA placement on a Laerdal SimMan 3G under healthy conditions and under full tongue edema.
Video LaryngoscopyProcedure or surgery
The participant will perform video laryngoscopy on a Laerdal SimMan 3G under healthy conditions and under half tongue edema with pharyngeal obstruction.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Anesthesiology providers | Group will contain anesthesiologists, CRNA and AAs. The type of healthcare professional participating will be recorded along with the years of experience the participant has. Each participants experience will be categorized into three ranges, 0-3 years, 3-10 years, and 10+ years of experience. For further clarification and analysis, the healthcare professional's normal practice setting will also be recorded including inpatient, outpatient, or hybrid (inpatient and outpatient) settings. All providers will be analyzed together. Receives: Procedure: Direct Laryngoscopy; Procedure: Laryngeal Mask Airways; Procedure: Video Laryngoscopy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Number of Attempts to Achieve Successful Airway Management
A successful attempt for any of the three procedures will be documented when a participant attaches a bag/valve and attempts a ventilation resulting in the presence of end-tidal carbon dioxide (which will be displayed when the device is properly placed). Failed attempts for any of the three procedures will be documented when a participant attaches a bag/valve device and attempts ventilation for purposes of confirming the presence of end-tidal carbon dioxide (which will not be displayed if the device is improperly placed). Three sequential failed attempts will result in a failure to achieve successful airway management.
Measured: Immediate Post-Procedure
Time Required to Achieve Successful Airway Management
Time will be measured manually via stopwatch. Time measurement for all three procedures will begin when the participant picks up the laryngoscope, video laryngoscope, or LMA having signaled his/her intention to begin the procedure. Time measurement will end upon detection of end-tidal carbon dioxide by the mannikin as evidenced on a standard patient monitor connected to the mannikin for this purpose. Time measurement will continue during failed attempts and subsequent efforts to successfully perform the procedure. Time measurement will be stopped upon successful end-tidal carbon dioxide measurement, three sequential failed attempts to perform a procedure, or after a total of five minutes have passed.
Measured: Immediate Post-Procedure
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Sep 2021
- Study start22 Oct 2021
- Primary completion13 Nov 2025
- Study completion13 Nov 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (26)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Airway ManagementStudies 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Case crossover
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Enrolment
- 62 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Prisma Health-Upstate
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Robert R. Morgan, MD, Principal investigator, Prisma Health-Upstate
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05055401
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Pro00104249
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 14 Sep 2021
- Last updated
- 2 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Ambrosio A, Pfannenstiel T, Bach K, Cornelissen C, Gaconnet C, Brigger MT. Difficult airway management for novice physicians: a randomized trial comparing direct and video-assisted laryngoscopy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 May;150(5):775-8. doi: 10.1177/0194599814521380. Epub 2014 Jan 29.
PubMed 24477825Bhattacharjee S, Maitra S, Baidya DK. A comparison between video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in the emergency department: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Anesth. 2018 Jun;47:21-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.03.006. Epub 2018 Mar 14.
PubMed 29549828Bucx MJ, van Geel RT, Wegener JT, Robers C, Stijnen T. Does experience influence the forces exerted on maxillary incisors during laryngoscopy? A manikin study using the Macintosh laryngoscope. Can J Anaesth. 1995 Feb;42(2):144-9. doi: 10.1007/BF03028268.
PubMed 7720158Carlson JN, Crofts J, Walls RM, Brown CA 3rd. Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy for Intubating Adult Patients with Gastrointestinal Bleeding. West J Emerg Med. 2015 Dec;16(7):1052-6. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2015.8.28045. Epub 2015 Dec 1.
PubMed 26759653Cortellazzi P, Caldiroli D, Byrne A, Sommariva A, Orena EF, Tramacere I. Defining and developing expertise in tracheal intubation using a GlideScope((R)) for anaesthetists with expertise in Macintosh direct laryngoscopy: an in-vivo longitudinal study. Anaesthesia. 2015 Mar;70(3):290-5. doi: 10.1111/anae.12878. Epub 2014 Oct 1.
PubMed 25271442Deutsch ES, Christenson T, Curry J, Hossain J, Zur K, Jacobs I. Multimodality education for airway endoscopy skill development. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2009 Feb;118(2):81-6. doi: 10.1177/000348940911800201.
PubMed 19326756Griesdale DE, Liu D, McKinney J, Choi PT. Glidescope(R) video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2012 Jan;59(1):41-52. doi: 10.1007/s12630-011-9620-5. Epub 2011 Nov 1.
PubMed 22042705Grundgeiger T, Roewer N, Grundgeiger J, Hurtienne J, Happel O. Body posture during simulated tracheal intubation: GlideScope((R)) videolaryngoscopy vs Macintosh direct laryngoscopy for novices and experts. Anaesthesia. 2015 Dec;70(12):1375-81. doi: 10.1111/anae.13190. Epub 2015 Sep 5.
PubMed 26342141Joffe AM, Aziz MF, Posner KL, Duggan LV, Mincer SL, Domino KB. Management of Difficult Tracheal Intubation: A Closed Claims Analysis. Anesthesiology. 2019 Oct;131(4):818-829. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002815.
PubMed 31584884Jones PM, Armstrong KP, Armstrong PM, Cherry RA, Harle CC, Hoogstra J, Turkstra TP. A comparison of glidescope videolaryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 2008 Jul;107(1):144-8. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31816d15c9.
PubMed 18635480Kennedy CC, Cannon EK, Warner DO, Cook DA. Advanced airway management simulation training in medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2014 Jan;42(1):169-78. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31829a721f.
PubMed 24220691Lewis SR, Butler AR, Parker J, Cook TM, Schofield-Robinson OJ, Smith AF. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation: a Cochrane Systematic Review. Br J Anaesth. 2017 Sep 1;119(3):369-383. doi: 10.1093/bja/aex228.
PubMed 28969318Liu L, Tanigawa K, Kusunoki S, Tamura T, Ota K, Yamaga S, Kida Y, Otani T, Sadamori T, Takeda T, Iwasaki Y, Hirohashi N. Tracheal intubation of a difficult airway using Airway Scope, Airtraq, and Macintosh laryngoscope: a comparative manikin study of inexperienced personnel. Anesth Analg. 2010 Apr 1;110(4):1049-55. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181d2aad7.
PubMed 20357149Liu TT, Li L, Wan L, Zhang CH, Yao WL. Videolaryngoscopy vs. Macintosh laryngoscopy for double-lumen tube intubation in thoracic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2018 Aug;73(8):997-1007. doi: 10.1111/anae.14226. Epub 2018 Feb 6.
PubMed 29405258Martin LD, Mhyre JM, Shanks AM, Tremper KK, Kheterpal S. 3,423 emergency tracheal intubations at a university hospital: airway outcomes and complications. Anesthesiology. 2011 Jan;114(1):42-8. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318201c415.
PubMed 21150574
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Proficiency and Efficiency of Airway Management Skills Amongst Anesthesia Providers: A Multicenter Baseline Assessment
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05055401
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Pro00104249
- Conditions
- Airway Management
- Keywords
- Airway Management, Intubation, High Fidelity Mannikin, Anesthesia Providers
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 62 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Prisma Health-UpstateUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 22 Oct 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 13 Nov 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 13 Nov 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 24 Sep 2021 (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.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficiency and proficiency of three common airway management techniques amongst among anesthesia providers who maintain airway management privileges in our health system.
Detailed description
Airway management may take place in a variety of settings with varying degrees of urgency, ranging from performance for elective operative procedures to life-threatening emergencies. An appropriate psychomotor skill set is needed to perform the procedures utilized for airway management, and the time required to do so may impact patient outcomes. Prolonged periods of apnea and accompanying hypoxia can lead to brain damage or death. This research is designed to evaluate the proficiency of anesthesia providers who are responsible for practicing airway management in hospitals or health systems in the United States, including Anesthesiologists, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists, and Anesthesiology Assistants. We are attempting to establish a baseline level of proficiency by quantifying the time it takes to achieve successful airway management and the number of attempts required to do so utilizing a high fidelity manikin programmed to simulate various physiological conditions. This baseline information could then be used to manage the decisions made by hospitals or health systems related to airway management in the future, or to redefine the policies and procedures established for performing these procedures.
Study design
- Observational model
- Case crossover
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Anesthesiology providers | – | Procedure: Direct Laryngoscopy, Procedure: Laryngeal Mask Airways, Procedure: Video LaryngoscopyGroup will contain anesthesiologists, CRNA and AAs. The type of healthcare professional participating will be recorded along with the years of experience the participant has. Each participants experience will be categorized into three ranges, 0-3 years, 3-10 years, and 10+ years of experience. For further clarification and analysis, the healthcare professional's normal practice setting will also be recorded including inpatient, outpatient, or hybrid (inpatient and outpatient) settings. All providers will be analyzed together. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- All employees of the respective anesthesia departments employed by Prisma Health will be offered participation in this study including: anesthesiologists (previously completed anesthesiology residency), certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNA), and anesthesia assistants (AA).
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Informed consent is obtained from the participant
- Participants are presently employed as an anesthesiologist (previously completed an anesthesiology residency), CRNA or AA at a participating institution
- Participants have active airway management privileges with their institution
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Participants are not employed by their institution
- Refusal of the participant to sign a consent
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Direct LaryngoscopyThe participant will perform a direct laryngoscopy on a Laerdal SimMan 3G under healthy conditions and under limited cervical range of motion. | Procedure or surgery | Anesthesiology providers |
| Laryngeal Mask AirwaysThe participant will perform LMA placement on a Laerdal SimMan 3G under healthy conditions and under full tongue edema. | Procedure or surgery | Anesthesiology providers |
| Video LaryngoscopyThe participant will perform video laryngoscopy on a Laerdal SimMan 3G under healthy conditions and under half tongue edema with pharyngeal obstruction. | Procedure or surgery | Anesthesiology providers |
Primary outcome
Number of Attempts to Achieve Successful Airway Management
Time frame: Immediate Post-Procedure
A successful attempt for any of the three procedures will be documented when a participant attaches a bag/valve and attempts a ventilation resulting in the presence of end-tidal carbon dioxide (which will be displayed when the device is properly placed). Failed attempts for any of the three procedures will be documented when a participant attaches a bag/valve device and attempts ventilation for purposes of confirming the presence of end-tidal carbon dioxide (which will not be displayed if the device is improperly placed). Three sequential failed attempts will result in a failure to achieve successful airway management.
Time Required to Achieve Successful Airway Management
Time frame: Immediate Post-Procedure
Time will be measured manually via stopwatch. Time measurement for all three procedures will begin when the participant picks up the laryngoscope, video laryngoscope, or LMA having signaled his/her intention to begin the procedure. Time measurement will end upon detection of end-tidal carbon dioxide by the mannikin as evidenced on a standard patient monitor connected to the mannikin for this purpose. Time measurement will continue during failed attempts and subsequent efforts to successfully perform the procedure. Time measurement will be stopped upon successful end-tidal carbon dioxide measurement, three sequential failed attempts to perform a procedure, or after a total of five minutes have passed.
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 2 Jun 2026.
- Background: PubMed 24477825Ambrosio A, Pfannenstiel T, Bach K, Cornelissen C, Gaconnet C, Brigger MT. Difficult airway management for novice physicians: a randomized trial comparing direct and video-assisted laryngoscopy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 May;150(5):775-8. doi: 10.1177/0194599814521380. Epub 2014 Jan 29.
- Background: PubMed 29549828Bhattacharjee S, Maitra S, Baidya DK. A comparison between video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in the emergency department: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Anesth. 2018 Jun;47:21-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.03.006. Epub 2018 Mar 14.
- Background: PubMed 7720158Bucx MJ, van Geel RT, Wegener JT, Robers C, Stijnen T. Does experience influence the forces exerted on maxillary incisors during laryngoscopy? A manikin study using the Macintosh laryngoscope. Can J Anaesth. 1995 Feb;42(2):144-9. doi: 10.1007/BF03028268.
- Background: PubMed 26759653Carlson JN, Crofts J, Walls RM, Brown CA 3rd. Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy for Intubating Adult Patients with Gastrointestinal Bleeding. West J Emerg Med. 2015 Dec;16(7):1052-6. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2015.8.28045. Epub 2015 Dec 1.
- Background: PubMed 25271442Cortellazzi P, Caldiroli D, Byrne A, Sommariva A, Orena EF, Tramacere I. Defining and developing expertise in tracheal intubation using a GlideScope((R)) for anaesthetists with expertise in Macintosh direct laryngoscopy: an in-vivo longitudinal study. Anaesthesia. 2015 Mar;70(3):290-5. doi: 10.1111/anae.12878. Epub 2014 Oct 1.
- Background: PubMed 19326756Deutsch ES, Christenson T, Curry J, Hossain J, Zur K, Jacobs I. Multimodality education for airway endoscopy skill development. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2009 Feb;118(2):81-6. doi: 10.1177/000348940911800201.
- Background: PubMed 22042705Griesdale DE, Liu D, McKinney J, Choi PT. Glidescope(R) video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2012 Jan;59(1):41-52. doi: 10.1007/s12630-011-9620-5. Epub 2011 Nov 1.
- Background: PubMed 26342141Grundgeiger T, Roewer N, Grundgeiger J, Hurtienne J, Happel O. Body posture during simulated tracheal intubation: GlideScope((R)) videolaryngoscopy vs Macintosh direct laryngoscopy for novices and experts. Anaesthesia. 2015 Dec;70(12):1375-81. doi: 10.1111/anae.13190. Epub 2015 Sep 5.
- Background: PubMed 31584884Joffe AM, Aziz MF, Posner KL, Duggan LV, Mincer SL, Domino KB. Management of Difficult Tracheal Intubation: A Closed Claims Analysis. Anesthesiology. 2019 Oct;131(4):818-829. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002815.
- Background: PubMed 18635480Jones PM, Armstrong KP, Armstrong PM, Cherry RA, Harle CC, Hoogstra J, Turkstra TP. A comparison of glidescope videolaryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 2008 Jul;107(1):144-8. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31816d15c9.
- Background: PubMed 24220691Kennedy CC, Cannon EK, Warner DO, Cook DA. Advanced airway management simulation training in medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2014 Jan;42(1):169-78. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31829a721f.
- Background: PubMed 28969318Lewis SR, Butler AR, Parker J, Cook TM, Schofield-Robinson OJ, Smith AF. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation: a Cochrane Systematic Review. Br J Anaesth. 2017 Sep 1;119(3):369-383. doi: 10.1093/bja/aex228.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Airway Management
Not yet recruiting
Tizanidine Premedication Versus Placebo for Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion and Recovery in Adults Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery
Airway Management
Not yet recruitingObservational study
AI-assisted Tracheal Intubation in Children
Intubation
Recruiting
Comparing Surfactant Administration Through Supraglottic Airway and Thin Catheter for Preterm Infants
Surfactant, Respiratory Distress Syndrome (Neonatal)
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Preoperative Frailty and Suboptimal Mask Ventilation in Cardiac Surgery Patients
Frailty, Suboptimal Mask Ventilation
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
A Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Co-administration of GSK3862995B With GSK5784283 in Adult Participants With Moderate to Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
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.
Robert R. Morgan, MD principal investigator
Prisma Health-Upstate
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Airway Management, run by Prisma Health-Upstate 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 3 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Jun 2026. 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?
Number of Attempts to Achieve Successful Airway Management (time frame: Immediate Post-Procedure). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT05055401, which also lists 26 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 2 Jun 2026.