AzTrials
AzTrials

BleedingNCT01012518

Video-guided Percutaneous Tracheostomy (PCT) Versus Conventional PCT: Comparing Safety and Efficacy

A study testing Standard PCT and Video-guided PCT in people with Bleeding and Hypoxia, run by Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center at 1 site in Israel.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The purpose of this study is to compare the feasibility, safety, efficacy and ease of performance of a video-assisted PCT (via an endotracheal tube embedded with a mini video-camera) with the standard ("blind") PCT technique. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 90 years
Conditions the study is for
Bleeding, Hypoxia, Atelectasis
What is being tested?
Standard PCT and Video-guided PCT
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
60 participants
Where
1 siteIsrael
Study dates
Jan 2010to Feb 2011
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

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 to 90 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • The investigators will enroll for this study
  • patients aged >18 years old, admitted to the ICU,
  • who require elective PCT for prolonged mechanical ventilation, airway protection or weaning failure.

Who cannot join

  • Patients indicated for surgical tracheostomy, due to altered or difficult local anatomy;
  • necessity of emergency airway access due to acute airway compromise;
  • evidence of infection in the soft tissues of the neck;
  • coagulation abnormalities (INR>1.5, PTT>40, thrombocyte count < 50,000);
  • gross distortion of the neck anatomy (due to hematoma/tumor/thyromegaly/scarring from previous neck surgery/ unstable C-spine);
  • contra-indication for re-intubation/suspected loss of airway during re-intubation; hemodynamic instability.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Patrick Sorkine, MD contact

97236973390

patricks@tasmc.health.gov.il

Israel1 site
  • Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center

    Tel Aviv, 64239

    Dima Shmain, MD

    Yifat Klein, PhD

Other trials in Israel

About this study

Official title: Video-guided Percutaneous Tracheostomy (PCT): Evaluating the Safety, Efficacy and Simplicity of a Novel Technique, Compared to Conventional PCT

The purpose of this study is to compare the feasibility, safety, efficacy and ease of performance of a video-assisted PCT (via an endotracheal tube embedded with a mini video-camera) with the standard ("blind") PCT technique.

Read the detailed description

Background

Percutaneous tracheostomy (PCT) is commonly used in critically-ill patients who require long-term mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU). While being effective and safe, this technique has some complications. These include paratracheal insertion of the tracheostomy tube, tracheal injury; puncturing the cuff and transfixing the endotracheal tube (ETT) during the transtracheal needle insertion; inserting the guide wire through Murphy's eye; or accidental extubation while withdrawing the endotracheal tube during the procedure leading to loss of the airway [1-6].

Although using the fingertip to palpate the trachea and endotracheal tube is a useful technique to locate the tip of the endotracheal tube during the procedure, it is unreliable, particularly in patients with short and thick necks. There are reports of lower rates of acute complications under endoscopic (bronchoscopic) guidance [7-11]. However, there is no adequate controlled study showing that endoscopic-guided tracheostomy is superior to the 'blind' one. Moreover, it is an expensive tool which is not readily available in some centers.

Video guidance provides a cost-effective alternative to bronchoscopes, that may also reduce the risk of procedure-related complications such as paratracheal insertion of the tracheostomy tube, tracheal injury or cuff puncture [12].

The goal of this study is to evaluate the safety, efficacy and operability of video-guided PCT compared with standard PCT. Video-guided PCT, a bedside safe and simple technique that can be performed in the ICU without the assistance of a pulmonologist, may overcome some of the limitations of the standard percutaneous tracheostomy.

The technique is based on the ETView TVTTM, a commercially available ETT, embedded with a mini video-camera at the tip of the tube. It provides direct endoscopic visualization of the larynx and tracheal mucosa, and thereafter allows the determination of the tip of the transtracheal needle during percutaneous puncture of the trachea, and hence may reduce the likelihood of paratracheal insertion, tracheal injury, or other technical complications.

The ETView TVTTM device is compatible with any medical grade NTSC video monitor, thereby it provides monitoring of the airways during the intubation and PCT procedure, as well as continuous viewing of the airways as long as mechanical ventilation is required.

Study Objectives To compare video-guided PCT to the standard technique in terms of success rate, efficacy, safety, and outcomes..

Study design The study will be conducted as a comparative, semi-blinded, matched one (according to sex, age and difficult airway - that will be assessed according to neck diameter and anatomical parameters). The setting will be the ICU of the Sourasky medical center. 60 consecutive adult critically ill patients who require elective tracheostomy will be recruited for the study. Informed consent will be obtained from the families or next of kin of all study patients. In the absence of relatives, consent will be given by an anesthesiologist/intensivist not related to the study. Both procedures will be performed by the same team of intensivists upon all study patients. During and following the procedure we will assess all of the parameters mentioned above.

Methods

The procedure

The procedure will be performed by an ICU team which includes: an anesthesiologist/intensivist who executes the procedure, another anesthesiologist who applies anesthetics \& analgesia, a nurse, and a forth person who takes time.

During the procedures (either standard PCT or video-guided PCT) oxygen saturation, end tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2), ECG, blood pressure, and arterial blood gases will be monitored continuously.

The video-guided PCT procedure requires extubation and re-intubation with the TVTTM tube.

Re-intubation with the TVTTM tube will be performed as any commonly practiced intubation.

The ETView Tracheoscopic system (TVTTM) consists of an ETT, embedded with a video imaging device and a light source at its tip and an integrated cable with a connector, that may be wired to any video monitor.

The imaging system will be used to monitor the airways while intubating and, beyond the vocal cords, to locate the transtracheal insertion site and needle. In addition, the light source will serve for transillumination of the neck soft tissues, in order to delineate the tracheal curvature and identify anatomical deviations.

Anesthesia and analgesia will be routinely performed, and standardized for all the study patients. Low doses of the opiate fentanyl (2-3 μg/kg) and the short-acting sedative propofol (20 mg bolus, and 3-6mg/kg/h drip) will be administered at the beginning of the procedure. Rocuronium bromide, a brief acting muscle paralyzer, 0.6mg/kg, will also be used in most patients.

Patient follow-up

The executing physician will answer a questionnaire evaluating the intraprocedural difficulties, complications, feasibility, confidence, and operability. A second physician, blinded to the procedure performed, will monitor the study patients during the first 6h after the procedure, or until discharge. Follow-up will include documentation of any procedure-related complications, monitoring of respiratory/ventilatory parameters and length of stay (LOS) in the ICU beyond 6h (due to medical circumstances related to the procedure).

All study patients will be placed with arterial lines through which we withdraw blood before and after the procedure, and when indicated by deterioration of respiratory parameters - for blood gas analyses (PaO2/FiO2, PaCO2, pH and BE). In addition, saturation will be documented hourly, and all patients will have chest x-rays performed immediately following tracheostomy.

Safety will be assessed by the frequency of procedure-related complications. These include:

  1. Technical complications: False route/paratracheal insertion, injury to a thoracic vessel, tracheal/laryngeal/esophageal injury, accidental decannulation, puncturing the cuff, inserting the guide wire through Murphy's eye, malpositioning or kinking of the tracheal cannula, failed tracheostomy, multiple punctures (≥3).
  2. Clinical complications potentially related to the procedure:

B.1. Intraprocedural: endotracheal bleeding (>100cc) and transfusion requirements (RBC, FFP or platelets), transient hypoxia/hypoxemia, hemodynamic changes (e.g., transient hypotension not related to anesthetics).

B.2. Postprocedure: alterations in respiratory function (defined as >15% reduction in saturation or PaO2/FiO2, compared to baseline; Increased PaCO2 without change in saturation; the need to change ventilatory settings and/or add PEEP within the first 24 hrs), atelectasis, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, aspiration, early unexplained mortality (within the first 24 hrs).

Operability will be evaluated via a questionnaire answered by the executing intensivist (enclosed within proposal documents). The main parameters they will be asked to evaluate will be: whether the transtracheal needle was recognized via the TVTTM (yes/no); intraoperative difficulties; number of technical complications; level of confidence; ease of performance ("best practice"); and need to convert to surgical tracheostomy procedure.

In addition, another member of the team will measure operative time, which includes the total duration of the procedure; the time it took to recognize the tracheal insertion site and needle; and the time to perform the PCT, that we define as the time since ETT placement until successful tracheal placement is confirmed via air bubbles or ETCO2.

Study size

A power analysis for time to perform the PCT as the primary endpoint, with 80% power to detect a 5 minute reduction in this outcome and significance of 0.05 or greater, indicates that at least 17 patients would be required in each group. We wish to enroll 30 patients for each group.

Being tested
Standard PCT, Video-guided PCT
Keywords
percutaneous tracheostomy, paratracheal insertion, tracheal injury, transtracheal needle, ventilatory parameters
Medical subject headings
Hemorrhage, Hypoxia, Pulmonary Atelectasis, Pneumothorax, Mediastinal Emphysema

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Standard PCTDevice

    Also called Control, Conventional PCT

    The standard technique, performed without video guidance

  • Video-guided PCTDevice

    Also called Video-assisted PCT, ETView-guided PCT

    PCT performed with the guidance of a camera-embedded ETT wired to a monitor

Study groups in NCT01012518
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Conventional PCTActive comparatorPCT performed without video guidance, as conventionally performed
Receives: Device: Standard PCT
Video-assisted PCTExperimentalPCT performed with the guidance of a camera-embedded ETT wired to a monitor
Receives: Device: Video-guided PCT

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. procedure-related complications

    Measured: 6h

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. operative time

    Measured: minutes

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted13 Nov 2009 (estimated)
  2. Study startJan 2010
  3. Primary completionDec 2010 (estimated)
  4. Study completionFeb 2011 (estimated)

Resources

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
Supportive care
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
60 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT01012518
Sponsor's protocol ID
TASMC-09-PS-0544-CTIL
Status last verified
Nov 2009
First submitted
11 Nov 2009
Last updated
13 Nov 2009
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Standard PCT and Video-guided PCT in people with Bleeding and Hypoxia, run by Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center at 1 site in Israel.

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 3 inclusion and 6 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 Nov 2009. 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 Israel. 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?

Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Patrick Sorkine, MD (97236973390, patricks@tasmc.health.gov.il), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

procedure-related complications (time frame: 6h). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
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 13 Nov 2009.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in