Video LaryngoscopyNCT07888946
OR Video-Laryngoscope Evaluations
A study testing AMBU Product, CMAC-Storz and Glidescope in people with Video Laryngoscopy and Quality Improvement, run by University of Colorado, Denver at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The goal of this quality improvement protocol is to compare the evaluations between video laryngoscopes (VLs) available in the University of Colorado Health Hospital at Metro Denver operating rooms (ORs). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Video Laryngoscopy, Quality Improvement, Operating Rooms
- What is being tested?
- AMBU Product, CMAC-Storz and Glidescope
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 180 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 21 Oct 2026to Mar 2027
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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
- One of the pre-identified group of 12 UCHealth anesthesia faculty
- Elective or urgent OR cases requiring oral endotracheal intubation
Who cannot join
- Planned awake techniques
- Urgent front-of-neck access
- Non-OR settings
- Double-lumen tubes
- Clinical mandates for non-study device
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of Colorado Health Hospital
Aurora, Colorado, 80045
About this study
Official title: Comparative Evaluation and Standardization of Video-Laryngoscopes for OR Intubation
The goal of this quality improvement protocol is to compare the evaluations between video laryngoscopes (VLs) available in the University of Colorado Health Hospital at Metro Denver operating rooms (ORs).
With the feedback from survey answers collected, they will be translated into quantifiable data to easily review the VL usability and efficiency per VL device.
Read the detailed description
An evidence-based, comparative evaluation of commonly available VL systems in the UCHealth operating rooms (ORs). Building on our institution's prior QI approach for airway equipment selection (structured provider surveys, nonparametric analyses, and multi-year cost modeling), this project will
- quantify usability and efficiency across devices during routine OR intubations,
- characterize operational implications (charging, stocking, cleaning), and
- project a 5-year cost trajectory to inform enterprise standardization. Closing these gaps will enable a single, high-reliability VL platform (with defined blade portfolio) to streamline training, reduce setup time and errors, and optimize healthcare value.
- Conditions
- Video Laryngoscopy, Quality Improvement, Operating Rooms, Comparative Effectiveness Study, Survey
- Being tested
- AMBU Product, CMAC-Storz, Glidescope
- Keywords
- Video laryngoscopy, Quality Improvement, Operating Room Equipment, Comparative Effectiveness, Efficacy analysis, Quality analysis, Survey
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
AMBU ProductDevice
The AMBU video-laryngoscope platform will be used.
CMAC-StorzDevice
The CMAC-Storz video-laryngoscope platform will be used.
GlidescopeDevice
The Glidescope video-laryngoscope platform will be used.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| AMBU Product Analysis | Active comparator | Patient will be randomized to the AMBU laryngoscope platform. Receives: Device: AMBU Product |
| CMAC-Storz Product Analysis | Active comparator | Patient will be randomized to the CMAC-Storz laryngoscope platform. Receives: Device: CMAC-Storz |
| Glidescope Product Analysis | Active comparator | Patient will be randomized to the Glidescope laryngoscope platform. Receives: Device: Glidescope |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Global usability rating
Likert-scale measurement (1-5) of global usability. Question is framed as: "what is your overall rating of this product?"
- = Not globally usable at all
- = Somewhat not globally usable
- = Moderately globally usable
- = Very globally usable
- = Most globally usable
Measured: 3 months
Secondary outcomes (6)
Illumination and airway visualization
Likert-scale outcomes (1-5 scale) assessed via survey of study physicians
- = Poorest illumination and visibility
- = Below-average illumination and visibility
- = Average illumination and visibility
- = Above-average illumination and visibility
- = Best illumination and visibility
Measured: 3 months
Packaging and assembly
Likert-scale outcomes (1-5 scale) assessed via survey of study physicians
- = Poorest packaging and assembly
- = Below-average packaging and assembly
- = Average packaging and assembly
- = Above-average packaging and assembly
- = Best packaging and assembly
Measured: 3 months
Sturdiness and rigidity
Likert-scale outcomes (1-5 scale) assessed via survey of study physicians
- = Poorest sturdiness and rigidity
- = Below-average sturdiness and rigidity
- = Moderate sturdiness and rigidity
- = Above-average sturdiness and rigidity
- = Best sturdiness and rigidity
Measured: 3 months
Comfort and ease-of-use
Likert-scale outcomes (1-5 scale) assessed via survey of study physicians
- = Most uncomfortable and most difficult to use
- = Very uncomfortable and very difficult to use
- = Moderately comfortable and moderately easy to use
- = Very comfortable and very easy to use
- = Most comfortable and most easy to use
Measured: 3 months
Screen resolution
Likert-scale outcomes (1-5 scale) assessed via survey of study physicians
- = Poorest screen resolution
- = Below-average screen resolution
- = Moderate screen resolution
- = Above-average screen resolution
- = Best screen resolution
Measured: 3 months
Overall rating
Likert-scale outcomes (1-5 scale) assessed via survey of study physicians
- = Poorest-possible overall rating
- = Below-average overall rating
- = Moderate overall rating
- = Above-average overall rating
- = Best-possible overall rating
Measured: 3 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Oct 2026
- Study start21 Oct 2026
- Primary completionDec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completionMar 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Video LaryngoscopyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of Colorado, DenverThe 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
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- All patients included in this study must require intubation and the use of video laryngoscopy; the only difference is which video laryngoscope will be used. Participants will be randomized to one of the three video-laryngoscope platforms via stratified block randomization at a 1:1:1 ratio. Randomization will be stratified according to two variables: first, by a unique ID assigned to each physician performing study intuitions; second, by blade type (hyperangulated or standard). Permuted blocks of size 1 (three participants) will be used to randomize within strata.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 180 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Colorado, Denver
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07888946
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 26-1244
- Other IDs
- 26-1244
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 21 Sep 2026
- Last updated
- 27 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Simmons CG, Eckle T, Rogers D, Williams JD, Brainard JC. Disposable laryngoscope intubation to reduce equipment failure in an emergency out of OR setting - a quality control case study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2023 Jan 10;23(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12871-022-01956-3.
PubMed 36627551
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 27 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparative Evaluation and Standardization of Video-Laryngoscopes for OR Intubation
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07888946
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 26-1244
- Conditions
- Video Laryngoscopy, Quality Improvement, Operating Rooms, Comparative Effectiveness Study, Survey
- Keywords
- Video laryngoscopy, Quality Improvement, Operating Room Equipment, Comparative Effectiveness, Efficacy analysis, Quality analysis, Survey
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 180 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Colorado, DenverUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 21 Oct 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Mar 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 22 Oct 2026 (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 goal of this quality improvement protocol is to compare the evaluations between video laryngoscopes (VLs) available in the University of Colorado Health Hospital at Metro Denver operating rooms (ORs).
With the feedback from survey answers collected, they will be translated into quantifiable data to easily review the VL usability and efficiency per VL device.
Detailed description
An evidence-based, comparative evaluation of commonly available VL systems in the UCHealth operating rooms (ORs). Building on our institution's prior QI approach for airway equipment selection (structured provider surveys, nonparametric analyses, and multi-year cost modeling), this project will
- quantify usability and efficiency across devices during routine OR intubations,
- characterize operational implications (charging, stocking, cleaning), and
- project a 5-year cost trajectory to inform enterprise standardization. Closing these gaps will enable a single, high-reliability VL platform (with defined blade portfolio) to streamline training, reduce setup time and errors, and optimize healthcare value.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- All patients included in this study must require intubation and the use of video laryngoscopy; the only difference is which video laryngoscope will be used. Participants will be randomized to one of the three video-laryngoscope platforms via stratified block randomization at a 1:1:1 ratio. Randomization will be stratified according to two variables: first, by a unique ID assigned to each physician performing study intuitions; second, by blade type (hyperangulated or standard). Permuted blocks of size 1 (three participants) will be used to randomize within strata.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| AMBU Product Analysis | Active comparator | Device: AMBU ProductPatient will be randomized to the AMBU laryngoscope platform. |
| CMAC-Storz Product Analysis | Active comparator | Device: CMAC-StorzPatient will be randomized to the CMAC-Storz laryngoscope platform. |
| Glidescope Product Analysis | Active comparator | Device: GlidescopePatient will be randomized to the Glidescope laryngoscope platform. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- One of the pre-identified group of 12 UCHealth anesthesia faculty
- Elective or urgent OR cases requiring oral endotracheal intubation
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Planned awake techniques
- Urgent front-of-neck access
- Non-OR settings
- Double-lumen tubes
- Clinical mandates for non-study device
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 |
|---|---|---|
| AMBU ProductThe AMBU video-laryngoscope platform will be used. | Device | AMBU Product Analysis |
| CMAC-StorzThe CMAC-Storz video-laryngoscope platform will be used. | Device | CMAC-Storz Product Analysis |
| GlidescopeThe Glidescope video-laryngoscope platform will be used. | Device | Glidescope Product Analysis |
Primary outcome
Global usability rating
Time frame: 3 months
Likert-scale measurement (1-5) of global usability. Question is framed as: "what is your overall rating of this product?" 1. = Not globally usable at all 2. = Somewhat not globally usable 3. = Moderately globally usable 4. = Very globally usable 5. = Most globally usable
6 secondary outcomes
Illumination and airway visualization
Time frame: 3 months
Packaging and assembly
Time frame: 3 months
Sturdiness and rigidity
Time frame: 3 months
Comfort and ease-of-use
Time frame: 3 months
Screen resolution
Time frame: 3 months
Overall rating
Time frame: 3 months
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 27 Oct 2026.
- Background: PubMed 36627551Simmons CG, Eckle T, Rogers D, Williams JD, Brainard JC. Disposable laryngoscope intubation to reduce equipment failure in an emergency out of OR setting - a quality control case study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2023 Jan 10;23(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12871-022-01956-3.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Video Laryngoscopy
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Correlation Between Bedside Anatomical Indicators and Lifting Force and Glottic Exposure Under Different Video Laryngoscopy Techniques
Difficult Airway, Intubation, Intratracheal
RecruitingPhase 4
Remifentanil Versus Rocuronium for Optimizing Video Laryngoscopy-assisted Tracheal Intubation
Tracheal Intubation, Video Laryngoscopy
Recruiting
Video Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation in Pediatric Surgery
Tracheal Intubation, Videolaryngoscopy
Not yet recruiting
Hyperangulated vs. Macintosh Style Blades for Intubation in Obstetric Patients
Obstetric, Cesarean Birth
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy in Patients With Acromegaly
Acromegaly, Nonfunctioning Pituitary Adenoma
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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing AMBU Product, CMAC-Storz and Glidescope in people with Video Laryngoscopy and Quality Improvement, run by University of Colorado, Denver 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 2 inclusion and 5 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: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 27 Oct 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
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?
Global usability rating (time frame: 3 months). 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 NCT07888946, which also lists 1 linked publication.
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 27 Oct 2026.