CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT05433155NasoVISIUpdated Mar 28, 2025

Nasotracheal Intubation With VL vs DL in Infants Trial

An interventional study of Nasotracheal intubation in Intubation Complication, Intubation; Difficult or Failed and Hypoxia, sponsored by Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Completed at 8 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 1 Day to 365 Days. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-03-28.

Sponsored by Children's Hospital of Philadelphia · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
680
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
1 Day to 365 Days
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Nasotracheal Intubation with Videolaryngoscopy versus Direct Laryngoscopy in Infants (NasoVISI) Trial is a prospective randomized multicenter study. The study will be conducted at 8 centers in the United States. It is expected that approximately 700 subjects enrolled to product 670 evaluable subjects.The randomization is 1:1 naso tracheal intubation with the Storz C-Mac Video Videolaryngoscopy (VL) or the Standard Direct Laryngoscope (DL). The primary objective is to compare the nasotracheal intubation (NTI) first attempt success rate using VL vs. DL in infants 0-365 days of age presenting for cardiothoracic surgery and cardiac catheterizations.

Read the detailed description

The primary objectives of the study are to compare the nasotracheal intubation (NTI) first attempt success rate using VL vs. DL in infants 0-365 days of age presenting for cardiothoracic surgery and cardiac catheterizations.

Secondary Objectives include the number of attempts for successful intubation; Incidence of failed NTI (conversion to oral intubation); Incidence of failure to intubate with assigned device; Incidence of complications over all attempts including non-severe and severe complications; Incidence of 1st-attempt complications; Need for cricoid pressure or external laryngeal manipulation, need for adjunct- (Magill forceps), rescue of one technique of the other, Percent of glottic opening (POGO) score less than 100%, intubation sequence exceeding 60 seconds and interaction analysis of weight group (i.e. ≤ median weight \& > median weight (kg)), and by clinicians' experience with cardiac anesthesiology (i.e. Permanent full time team members \& rotating team members) on the association between treatment and outcomes

Study Design: this is a prospective, randomized, multi-center parallel group trial

Setting/Participants: This will be a multi-center study. The target population will be infants 0-365 days of age scheduled for elective cardiothoracic surgery or cardiac catheterization requiring general anesthesia with NTI.

Study Interventions and Measures: The study intervention will be a 1:1 randomization to perform tracheal intubation with the Storz C-Mac Video Videolaryngoscopy (VL) or the Standard Direct Laryngoscope (DL).

Main study outcome measures are as follows:

  • The first intubation attempt success rate with each device
  • The number of attempts for successful intubation with each device
  • Complications associated with intubation
02

Conditions studied

  • Intubation Complication
  • Intubation; Difficult or Failed
  • Hypoxia
  • Hypoxemia
  • Anesthesia Intubation Complication
  • Pediatric HD

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Laryngoscope
  • Video Laryngoscope
  • Direct Laryngoscope
  • Nasotracheal Intubation
  • First attempt success
  • Intubation complications
  • Intubation technical difficulties
  • Randomization
  • Multi-center
03

In context

Hypoxia

1,231 studies on the registry are indexed under Hypoxia; 241 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 680 is above the median of 45 across 853 interventional studies indexed under Hypoxia.

Browse Hypoxia studies →

Lead sponsor

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia is the lead sponsor of 480 studies on the registry; 85 are open to participants now.

Of its 28 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 22 (79%) have results posted.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
1 Day to 365 Days
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Males or females age 0 -365 days
  • Scheduled for elective cardiothoracic surgery or cardiac catheterization procedures lasting longer than 30 minutes under general anesthesia where nasotracheal intubation will be performed by an anesthesiology clinician
  • Plan to use a neuromuscular blocking drug prior to intubation as standard of care
  • Parental/guardian permission (informed consent)

For clinician participants:

  • Anesthesia attending, anesthesia fellows, anesthesia resident, Anesthesia Assistant (AA) or CRNA

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Less than 36 weeks gestation
  • Less than 2 kg
  • History of difficult intubation
  • History of abnormal airway
  • Predictive of difficult intubation upon physical examination
  • Preoperative endotracheal tube or tracheostomy
  • Emergency cases
05

Study design

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

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Videolaryngoscopy

    Nasotracheal intubation performed with the Storz C-Mac Video Laryngoscope

    Device: Nasotracheal intubation

  • Active comparator
    Direct Laryngoscopy

    Nasotracheal Intubation performed with the standard clinical direct blades

    Device: Nasotracheal intubation

Interventions

  • DeviceNasotracheal intubation

    Nontracheal intubation using clinical standard videolaryngoscopy or direct laryngoscopy

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. VL first attempt success rate

    Direct observation of intubation in the OR and medical record review

    Time frame: 24 hours

Secondary outcomes

  1. Number of attempts for successful intubation

    Direct observation of intubation in the OR and medical record review

    Time frame: 24 hours

  2. Incidence of failed NTI (conversion to oral intubation)

    Direct observation of intubation in the OR and medical record review

    Time frame: 24 hours

  3. Incidence of failure to intubate with assigned device

    Direct observation of intubation in the OR and medical record review

    Time frame: 24 hours

  4. Incidence of complications over all attempts including non-severe and severe complications

    Direct observation of intubation in the OR and medical record review

    Time frame: 24 hours

  5. Incidence of 1st-attempt complications

    Direct observation of intubation in the OR and medical record review

    Time frame: 24 hours

  6. Incidence of additional techniques

    Direct observation of intubation in the OR and medical record review

    Time frame: 24 hours

  7. Interaction analysis of weight group and by clinicians' experience with cardiac anesthesiology on the association between treatment and outcomes

    Direct observation of intubation in the OR and medical record review

    Time frame: 24 hours

07

Study locations

8 sites
  • Children's Hospital Colorado
    Aurora, Colorado 80045, United States
  • Children's National Medical Center
    Washington, District of Columbia 20010, United States
  • The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, United States
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center
    Nashville, Tennessee 37203-6869, United States
  • University of Texas at Austin Dell Children's Medical Center
    Austin, Texas 78723, United States
  • Children's Medical Center Dallas
    Dallas, Texas 75235, United States
  • Texas Children's Hospital
    Houston, Texas 77030, United States
  • Seattle Children's Hospital
    Seattle, Washington 98105, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Fiadjoe JE, Nishisaki A, Jagannathan N, Hunyady AI, Greenberg RS, Reynolds PI, Matuszczak ME, Rehman MA, Polaner DM, Szmuk P, Nadkarni VM, McGowan FX Jr, Litman RS, Kovatsis PG. Airway management complications in children with difficult tracheal intubation from the Pediatric Difficult Intubation (PeDI) registry: a prospective cohort analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2016 Jan;4(1):37-48. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00508-1. Epub 2015 Dec 17. PubMed 26705976 ↗
  • Garcia-Marcinkiewicz AG, Kovatsis PG, Hunyady AI, Olomu PN, Zhang B, Sathyamoorthy M, Gonzalez A, Kanmanthreddy S, Galvez JA, Franz AM, Peyton J, Park R, Kiss EE, Sommerfield D, Griffis H, Nishisaki A, von Ungern-Sternberg BS, Nadkarni VM, McGowan FX Jr, Fiadjoe JE; PeDI Collaborative investigators. First-attempt success rate of video laryngoscopy in small infants (VISI): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2020 Dec 12;396(10266):1905-1913. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32532-0. PubMed 33308472 ↗
  • Greene NH, Jooste EH, Thibault DP, Wallace AS, Wang A, Vener DF, Matsouaka RA, Jacobs ML, Jacobs JP, Hill KD, Ames WA. A Study of Practice Behavior for Endotracheal Intubation Site for Children With Congenital Heart Disease Undergoing Surgery: Impact of Endotracheal Intubation Site on Perioperative Outcomes-An Analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Cardiac Anesthesia Society Database. Anesth Analg. 2019 Oct;129(4):1061-1068. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003594. PubMed 30198928 ↗
  • Jiang J, Ma DX, Li B, Wu AS, Xue FS. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Clin Anesth. 2019 Feb;52:6-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.08.029. Epub 2018 Aug 25. PubMed 30153543 ↗
  • O'Shea JE, Thio M, Kamlin CO, McGrory L, Wong C, John J, Roberts C, Kuschel C, Davis PG. Videolaryngoscopy to Teach Neonatal Intubation: A Randomized Trial. Pediatrics. 2015 Nov;136(5):912-9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-1028. Epub 2015 Oct 19. PubMed 26482669 ↗
  • Low D, Healy D, Rasburn N. The use of the BERCI DCI Video Laryngoscope for teaching novices direct laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia. 2008 Feb;63(2):195-201. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05323.x. PubMed 18211452 ↗
  • Herbstreit F, Fassbender P, Haberl H, Kehren C, Peters J. Learning endotracheal intubation using a novel videolaryngoscope improves intubation skills of medical students. Anesth Analg. 2011 Sep;113(3):586-90. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182222a66. Epub 2011 Jun 16. PubMed 21680859 ↗
  • Sun H, Liu M, Lin Z, Jiang H, Niu Y, Wang H, Chen S. Comprehensive identification of 125 multifarious constituents in Shuang-huang-lian powder injection by HPLC-DAD-ESI-IT-TOF-MS. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2015 Nov 10;115:86-106. doi: 10.1016/j.jpba.2015.06.013. Epub 2015 Jun 30. PubMed 26177215 ↗
  • Lingappan K, Arnold JL, Fernandes CJ, Pammi M. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in neonates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 4;6(6):CD009975. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009975.pub3. PubMed 29862490 ↗
  • Goto T, Gibo K, Hagiwara Y, Morita H, Brown DF, Brown CA 3rd, Hasegawa K; Japanese Emergency Medicine Network Investigators. Multiple failed intubation attempts are associated with decreased success rates on the first rescue intubation in the emergency department: a retrospective analysis of multicentre observational data. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015 Jan 16;23:5. doi: 10.1186/s13049-014-0085-8. PubMed 25700237 ↗
  • Goto T, Watase H, Morita H, Nagai H, Brown CA 3rd, Brown DF, Hasegawa K; Japanese Emergency Medicine Network Investigators. Repeated attempts at tracheal intubation by a single intubator associated with decreased success rates in emergency departments: an analysis of a multicentre prospective observational study. Emerg Med J. 2015 Oct;32(10):781-6. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2013-203473. Epub 2014 Dec 31. PubMed 25552546 ↗
  • Sakles JC, Chiu S, Mosier J, Walker C, Stolz U. The importance of first pass success when performing orotracheal intubation in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2013 Jan;20(1):71-8. doi: 10.1111/acem.12055. PubMed 23574475 ↗
  • Mort TC. Emergency tracheal intubation: complications associated with repeated laryngoscopic attempts. Anesth Analg. 2004 Aug;99(2):607-13, table of contents. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000122825.04923.15. PubMed 15271750 ↗
  • Grunwell JR, Kamat PP, Miksa M, Krishna A, Walson K, Simon D, Krawiec C, Breuer R, Lee JH, Gradidge E, Tarquinio K, Shenoi A, Shults J, Nadkarni V, Nishisaki A; National Emergency Airway Registry for Children (NEAR4KIDS) and the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis (PALISI) Network. Trend and Outcomes of Video Laryngoscope Use Across PICUs. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2017 Aug;18(8):741-749. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000001175. PubMed 28492404 ↗
  • Abdelgadir IS, Phillips RS, Singh D, Moncreiff MP, Lumsden JL. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in children (excluding neonates). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 May 24;5(5):CD011413. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011413.pub2. PubMed 28539007 ↗
  • Galvez JA, Acquah S, Ahumada L, Cai L, Polanski M, Wu L, Simpao AF, Tan JM, Wasey J, Fiadjoe JE. Hypoxemia, Bradycardia, and Multiple Laryngoscopy Attempts during Anesthetic Induction in Infants: A Single-center, Retrospective Study. Anesthesiology. 2019 Oct;131(4):830-839. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002847. Erratum In: Anesthesiology. 2019 Dec;131(6):1373. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003024. PubMed 31335549 ↗
  • Graciano AL, Tamburro R, Thompson AE, Fiadjoe J, Nadkarni VM, Nishisaki A. Incidence and associated factors of difficult tracheal intubations in pediatric ICUs: a report from National Emergency Airway Registry for Children: NEAR4KIDS. Intensive Care Med. 2014 Nov;40(11):1659-69. doi: 10.1007/s00134-014-3407-4. Epub 2014 Aug 27. PubMed 25160031 ↗
  • Nishisaki A, Turner DA, Brown CA 3rd, Walls RM, Nadkarni VM; National Emergency Airway Registry for Children (NEAR4KIDS); Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) Network. A National Emergency Airway Registry for children: landscape of tracheal intubation in 15 PICUs. Crit Care Med. 2013 Mar;41(3):874-85. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182746736. PubMed 23328260 ↗
  • Garcia-Marcinkiewicz AG, Adams HD, Gurnaney H, Patel V, Jagannathan N, Burjek N, Mensinger JL, Zhang B, Peeples KN, Kovatsis PG, Fiadjoe JE; PeDI Collaborative. A Retrospective Analysis of Neuromuscular Blocking Drug Use and Ventilation Technique on Complications in the Pediatric Difficult Intubation Registry Using Propensity Score Matching. Anesth Analg. 2020 Aug;131(2):469-479. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004393. PubMed 31567318 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 28, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05433155
Lead sponsor
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Collaborators
Children's Hospital Colorado, Seattle Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Children's Medical Center Dallas, Dell Children's Medical Center of Central Texas, Children's National Research Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jun 27, 2022
Start date
Jun 6, 2022
Primary completion
Feb 25, 2025
Completion
Feb 25, 2025
Last update
Mar 28, 2025

Study contacts

Annery Garcia-Marcinikiewicz, MD
principal investigator · The Children Hospital of Philadelphia

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Mar 2025. 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