CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02245789MGM-PicRemiUpdated Oct 31, 2016

Does the Use of a Videolaryngoscope Modifies Anesthetic Induction ?

An interventional study of Tracheal intubation and Propofol and remifentanil anesthesia in Tracheal Intubation, sponsored by Hopital Foch. Completed at 2 sites in France. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2016-10-31.

Sponsored by Hopital Foch · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
50
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Videolaryngoscopes become widely used. The aim of this study is to compare anesthetic induction when patients are tracheally intubated using a MacGraph Mac videolaryngoscope or a conventional MacIntosh laryngoscope.

Tracheal intubation induces a nociceptive stimulation. Hypothesis is that the use of a videolaryngoscope induces a less pronounced nociceptive stimulation and, consequently, that it modifies the anesthetic drugs requirement. .

Read the detailed description

All patients will received a standardized anesthetic procedure : combined closed-loop anesthesia system using bispectral index as control variable and two proportional-differential control algorithms, a propofol and a remifentanil target-controlled infusion system. The effectiveness of such a closed-loop anesthesia system has been demonstrated in a prospective, randomized study.

Patients will be randomized in two groups : intubation using a conventional MacIntosh laryngoscope or intubation using a videolaryngoscope.

If our hypothesis is confirmed, the required concentration of remifentanil, an opioid agent, will be reduced in the group using a videolaryngoscope.

02

Conditions studied

  • Tracheal Intubation
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Hopital Foch is the lead sponsor of 208 studies on the registry; 21 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • patient scheduled for a general anesthesia with orotracheal intubation

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • predictable risk of difficult mask ventilation or of difficult tracheal intubation
  • necessity of a rapid sequence induction
  • contra-indication to the use of the automated administration of propofol and of remifentanil
  • contra-indication to the use of atracurium
  • Otolaryngology, thoracic surgery, or intracranial surgery
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
50 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Macintosh laryngoscope

    Tracheal intubation will be performed using a Macintosh laryngoscope. All patients will received propofol and remifentanil anesthesia.

    Procedure: Tracheal intubation · Drug: Propofol and remifentanil anesthesia

  • Experimental
    McGrath Mac videolaryngoscope

    Tracheal intubation will be performed using a McGrath Mac videolaryngoscope. All patients will received propofol and remifentanil anesthesia.

    Procedure: Tracheal intubation · Drug: Propofol and remifentanil anesthesia

Interventions

  • ProcedureTracheal intubation

    Tracheal intubation will be performed using a Macintosh laryngoscope or a McGrath Mac videolaryngoscope

  • DrugPropofol and remifentanil anesthesia

    The standardized anesthetic procedure used a closed-loop anesthesia system with bispectral index as control variable and with two proportional-differential control algorithms, one for propofol target-controlled infusion system and one for remifentanil target-controlled infusion system.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Required dose of opioid to counteract nociceptive stimulation

    Tracheal intubation induces a nociceptive stimulation. Hypothesis is that the use of a videolaryngoscope induces a less pronounced nociceptive stimulation and, consequently, that the required maximal concentration of remifentanil is lower than when a standard laryngoscope is used.

    Time frame: 1 hour

Secondary outcomes

  1. Characteristics of anesthesia

    Peak concentration of propofol

    Time frame: one hour

  2. Characteristics of anesthesia

    doses of propofol and of remifentanil (from beginning of the induction to 5 minutes after tracheal intubation)

    Time frame: one hour

  3. Characteristics of anesthesia

    values of bispectral index (from beginning of the induction to 5 minutes after tracheal intubation)

    Time frame: one hour

  4. Characteristics of tracheal intubation

    time to obtain the first capnogram

    Time frame: one hour

  5. Characteristics of tracheal intubation

    visualization of the glottis (score of Cormak and Lehane modified by Yentis, POGO score

    Time frame: one hour

  6. Characteristics of tracheal intubation

    use of alternative techniques for intubation

    Time frame: one hour

  7. Characteristics of tracheal intubation

    esophageal intubation

    Time frame: one hour

  8. Characteristics of tracheal intubation

    incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation (SpO2 \<92%)

    Time frame: one hour

  9. Characteristics of tracheal intubation

    hemodynamic effects of induction and tracheal intubation

    Time frame: one hour

  10. Complications of intubation

    Throat pain and hoarseness

    Time frame: one day

  11. Ergonomic evaluation of the device

    questionnaire Qusi

    Time frame: one hour

07

Study locations

2 sites
  • Institut Hospitalier Franco-Britannique
    Levallois-Perret, Hauts de Seine 92300, France
  • Hopital Foch
    Suresnes, Hauts de Seine 92151, France
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Liu N, Chazot T, Hamada S, Landais A, Boichut N, Dussaussoy C, Trillat B, Beydon L, Samain E, Sessler DI, Fischler M. Closed-loop coadministration of propofol and remifentanil guided by bispectral index: a randomized multicenter study. Anesth Analg. 2011 Mar;112(3):546-57. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e318205680b. Epub 2011 Jan 13. PubMed 21233500 ↗
  • Ing R, Liu N, Chazot T, Fessler J, Dreyfus JF, Fischler M, Le Guen M. Nociceptive stimulation during Macintosh direct laryngoscopy compared with McGrath Mac videolaryngoscopy: A randomized trial using indirect evaluation using an automated administration of propofol and remifentanil. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Sep;96(38):e8087. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008087. PubMed 28930848 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Oct 31, 2016, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02245789
Lead sponsor
Hopital Foch
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Sep 22, 2014
Start date
Sep 2014
Primary completion
Feb 2015
Completion
Feb 2015
Last update
Oct 31, 2016

Study contacts

Michel Chandon, MD
principal investigator · Hopital Foch

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2016. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion