RIFL (Rigid and Flexing Laryngoscope) vs. Fiberoptic Bronchoscope

Completed · Not applicable

Conditions studied: Intubation; Difficult

In brief

We will conduct a randomized trial comparing the success rate and time to intubation using the RIFL vs. the fiberoptic bronchoscope, as the latter is commonly held to be the gold standard of difficult airway devices. Specifically, we wish to compare the of intubation between the two devices in patients with potentially difficult airways as defined by an oropharyngeal class 3-4, BMI greater than 35, or in patients with a history of difficult intubation using direct laryngoscopy.

Key facts

Study ID

NCT01965938

Run by

Vanderbilt University

People needed

41

Starts

2012-09-01

Expected to finish

2013-07-01

Last updated by the study team

2017-01-05

Who can join

Age: 18 and older. Sex: any. Healthy volunteers: not accepted.

You may qualify if…

• Patients with known or suspected difficult airways defined as:
• patients with an oropharyngeal score of 3 or 4
• patients whose body mass index calculates greater to or equal to 35

You may not qualify if…

• Patients who necessitate an awake fiberoptic intubation or a rapid sequence intubation.

Where it is running

• Vanderbilt University Medical Center — Nashville, Tennessee, United States

Full record on ClinicalTrials.gov

Trial information comes from ClinicalTrials.gov and is refreshed daily. TrialsForMe does not provide medical care and does not run the studies it lists.