CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02350933Updated May 9, 2018

Endoscopic Evaluation of the Paediatric Airway After Prior Prolonged (>24 h) Tracheal Intubation

An interventional study of Endoscopy in Intubation and Endoscopy, sponsored by University Children's Hospital, Zurich. Completed at 5 sites in 4 countries. Open to participants aged Up to 16 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-05-09.

Sponsored by University Children's Hospital, Zurich · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 3 years 3 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Sep 2011, registered Dec 2014).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
1,000
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
Up to 16 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to determine whether possible damages of the trachea caused by a prior prolonged intubation (> 24h) can be observed by rigid endoscopy of the trachea and if cuffed tracheal tubes cause less damages than cuffed tubes.

Read the detailed description

The aim of the study is to systematically evaluate airway injury by rigid endoscopy in children (1 month to 16 years of age) with previous prolonged (> 24h) tracheal intubation with a special focus on whether their trachea was intubated with a cuffed or an uncuffed tracheal tube.

After induction of anaesthesia and obtaining venous access, neuromuscular blocking agents are administered and facemask pre-oxygenation occurs for 2 minutes. Direct laryngoscopy is then performed in the preoxygenated, paralysed and conventionally monitored patient to obtain a direct vision. Then a rigid endoscope with endoscopy camera is carefully guided through the larynx down to the carina and drawn back under monitor vision with electronic recording.

An International Study Board Committee (assessor board) will assess the endoscopic records in a blinded manner using a systematic grading system.

Beside tracheal tube type, factors such as intubator, sedation management, age, length of intubation, nasal or oral intubation and time point of endoscopy will affect presence, absence or incidence of potential airway injuries caused by prolonged tracheal intubation. Thus it is difficult to perform a power calculation to figure out number of patients to demonstrate or exclude a statistically significant difference between tube types. Using the incidence of subglottic stenosis, as the worst case scenario outcome after longterm intubation, an incidence of less than 2 % seems to be reasonable in uncuffed tracheal tubes.So the primary hypothesis to be tested is equivalence in major complication rates defined as subglottic stenosis comparing cuffed versus uncuffed tracheal tubes.

Specifically, the primary hypothesis relates to the main outcome criteria of this study, which is subglottic stenosis after longterm intubation. The null-hypothesis Ho is defined as no difference in the incidence rates of subglottic stenosis between cuffed and uncuffed groups. The null-hypothesis (Ho: μ-Diff = 0) will be compared with the alternative hypothesis (H1: μ-Diff \<> 0). The study is designed to detect a clinically unacceptable deterioration of 4% above the baseline airway-injury rate of 2% when using uncuffed tubes with a power of 80% and a type I error probability of less than 5%. Sample sizes of 376 from the cuffed group and 376 from the uncuffed group achieve 80% power at a 5% significance level using a one-sided equivalence test of proportions when the proportion in the standard group (uncuffed TT) is 0.02 and the proportion in the experimental group (cuffed TT) being tested for equivalence is 0.02 and the maximum allowable increase between these proportions that still results in equivalence (the range of equivalence) is 0.04. In total 1000 patients with prior long-term intubation (> 24 hours) using a cuffed (500) or an uncuffed (500) tracheal tube will be recruited / included from different study centres.

02

Conditions studied

  • Intubation
  • Endoscopy

Keywords

  • tracheal damages
03

In context

Lead sponsor

University Children's Hospital, Zurich is the lead sponsor of 92 studies on the registry; 23 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Up to 16 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Planned elective intervention/surgery/diagnostics/endoscopy and general anaesthesia with airway instrumentation involving muscle paralysis in children, aged 1 month (UK) or from birth (other centers) to 16 years having prior prolonged (≥ 24h) tracheal intubation (s) during ICU-stay (s) within the study centre (patients for diagnosis/treatment of stridor are also included (see exclusion criteria also below)).
  • No known risk for regurgitation
  • Written parental consent
  • American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status \< IV

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • No parental written consent
  • Known airway anomalies associated with syndromes
  • Known or suspected difficult intubation
  • Emergency surgery or intervention
  • Full stomach and/or at risk for regurgitation
  • ASA physical status IV and higher
  • Patients with current or prior tracheostomy
  • Known, suspected or potential cervical spine pathology (e.g. Down's Syndrome)
  • Insufficient clinical details from previous prolonged intubation
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
1,000 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Other
    0° rigid endoscope

    Endoscopy of the trachea is performed using a 0° rigid endoscope

    Procedure: Endoscopy

Interventions

  • ProcedureEndoscopy

    A rigid endoscopy of the larynx and the trachea until the carina is performed using a rigid 0° endoscope.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Number of patients with evidence of subglottic stenosis after longterm intubation with cuffed versus uncuffed tracheal tubes

    An International Study Board Committee (assessor board) will assess the endoscopic records in a blinded manner using a systematic grading system.

    Time frame: After an average induction period of 10 min of an anesthesia with a planned intubation after the endoscopy

Secondary outcomes

  1. Numbers of prior intubations

    Numbers of shortterm and prolonged (\>24h) and numbers of intubations with cuffed and uncuffed tubes are listed

    Time frame: Retrospective data analysis of former intubations is performed within two years after the endoscopy

  2. Duration of prior longterm intubation

    Time frame: Retrospective data analysis of former intubations is performed within two years after the endoscopy

  3. Reason for prior longterm intubation

    Reason for prior longterm intubation is look up in patient's medical records.

    Time frame: Retrospective data analysis of former intubations is performed within two years after the endoscopy

  4. Route of prior longterm intubation

    Route of prior longterm intubation (nasal or oral) is look up in patient's medical records.

    Time frame: Retrospective data analysis of former intubations is performed within two years after the endoscopy

  5. Tube type used for prior longterm intubation

    Tube type used for prior longterm intubation (cuffed or uncuffed) is look up in patient's medical records.

    Time frame: Retrospective data analysis of former intubations is performed within two years after the endoscopy

  6. Tube brand used for prior longterm intubation

    Tube brand used for prior longterm intubation is look up in patient's medical records.

    Time frame: Retrospective data analysis of former intubations is performed within two years after the endoscopy

  7. Tube size used for prior longterm intubation

    Tube size (inner diameter) used for prior longterm intubation is look up in patient's medical records.

    Time frame: Retrospective data analysis of former intubations is performed within two years after the endoscopy

  8. Site of prior longterm intubation

    Site of prior longterm intubation is look up in patient's medical records.

    Time frame: Retrospective data analysis of former intubations is performed within two years after the endoscopy

  9. Maximal cuff pressure during prior longterm intubation

    Maximal cuff pressure in cmH2O during longterm intubation is look up in patient's medical records.

    Time frame: Retrospective data analysis of former intubations is performed within two years after the endoscopy

  10. Number of patients with a stridor event after extubation of prior longterm intubation

    Time frame: Retrospective data analysis of former intubations is performed within two years after the endoscopy

07

Study locations

5 sites
  • Kinderkrankenhaus Amsterdamer Straße
    Köln, Nordrhein-Westfalen 50735, Germany
  • Asklepios Kinderklinik Sankt Augustin
    Sankt Augustin, Nordrhein-Westfalen 53757, Germany
  • Erasmus Medical Center, Sophia Children's Hospital
    Rotterdam, 3015, Netherlands
  • University Children's Hospital
    Zurich, 8032, Switzerland
  • Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust
    London, WC1N 3JH, United Kingdom
08

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on May 9, 2018, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02350933
Lead sponsor
University Children's Hospital, Zurich
Collaborators
Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, Asklepios-Klinik Sankt Augustin, Kinderkrankenhaus Amsterdamer Straße, Erasmus Medical Center
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jan 30, 2015
Start date
Sep 2011
Primary completion
Dec 2017
Completion
Dec 2017
Last update
May 9, 2018

Study contacts

Markus Weiss, Prof.
principal investigator · University Children's Hospital, Zurich

Oversight

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

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in May 2018. 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