Intubation, IntratrachealNCT03775317
Video Laryngoscopy Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Nasotracheal Intubation
A study testing Video Laryngoscopy and Direct Laryngoscopy in people with Intubation, Intratracheal, run by Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Nasotracheal intubation is a common method for securing an advanced airway during surgery for procedures that involve manipulation of the oral cavity, the dentition, or the facial bones. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Intubation, Intratracheal
- What is being tested?
- Video Laryngoscopy and Direct Laryngoscopy
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 50 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 19 Dec 2018to Aug 2019
- 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 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- oral and maxillofacial surgery to be performed under general anesthesia
- planned for a general anesthetic with nasotracheal intubation,
- ASA I and II
- at least 18 years of age
Who cannot join
- prisoners
- anticipated difficult airways
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
University Medical Center
New Orleans, Louisiana, 70112
Brett J King, DDS, 504-702-2000, bking6@lsuhsc.edu
Brett J King, DDS
About this study
Official title: Comparison of Video-assisted Laryngoscopy and Direct Laryngoscopy for Routine Nasotracheal Intubation in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Patients: a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Nasotracheal intubation is a common method for securing an advanced airway during surgery for procedures that involve manipulation of the oral cavity, the dentition, or the facial bones. The placement of a nasotracheal tube is often more challenging, especially for learning providers, even for patients with normal airway anatomy. Video laryngoscopy is an adjunctive technique in anesthesia that utilizes a camera at the tip of the laryngoscope blade and provides an indirect view of the glottis during intubation through display on a monitor. The use of video laryngoscopes has been shown to reduce time to intubation, result in perception of easier intubation by the anesthesia team, and reduce the use of adjunctive maneuvers during intubation. There is little evidence, however, to show these benefits for routine nasotracheal intubation. The purpose of the study is to compare the ease of video-assisted laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy in routine nasotracheal intubation for Maxillofacial procedures. The investigators hypothesize that the use of video-assisted laryngoscopy for routine nasotracheal intubation will result in quicker time to intubation, less adjunctive maneuvers and anesthesia perception of easier intubation when compared to direct nasotrahceal intubation. The investigators aim to compare the time to intubation, number of adjunctive maneuvers and the perception of intubation difficulty in routine nasotracheal intubation for Maxillofacial procedures for video-assisted laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy.
Read the detailed description
Comparison of video-assisted laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for routine nasotracheal intubation in oral and maxillofacial surgery patients: a randomized controlled trial.
INTRODUCTION Nasotracheal intubation is a common method for securing an advanced airway during surgery for procedures that involve manipulation of the oral cavity, the dentition, or the facial bones. The placement of a nasotracheal tube is often more challenging, especially for learning providers, even for patients with normal airway anatomy. Video laryngoscopy is an adjunctive technique in anesthesia that utilizes a camera at the tip of the laryngoscope blade and provides an indirect view of the glottis during intubation through display on a monitor. The use of video laryngoscopes has been shown to reduce time to intubation, result in perception of easier intubation by the anesthesia team, and reduce the use of adjunctive maneuvers during intubation. There is little evidence, however, to show these benefits for routine nasotracheal intubation. The purpose of the study is to compare the ease of video-assisted laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy in routine nasotracheal intubation for Maxillofacial procedures. The investigators hypothesize that the use of video-assisted laryngoscopy for routine nasotracheal intubation will increase the rate of success on first intubation attempt, result in quicker time to intubation, less adjunctive maneuvers and anesthesia perception of easier intubation when compared to direct nasotrahceal intubation. The investigators aim to compare the rate of first attempt intubation success, time to intubation, number of adjunctive maneuvers and the perception of intubation difficulty in routine nasotracheal intubation for Maxillofacial procedures for video-assisted laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy.
METHODS Study Sample After obtaining institutional review board approval (IRB #10272), the authors will design a randomized clinical trial. The eligible study population will include all patients who presented to University Medical Center in New Orleans, LA for oral and maxillofacial surgery to be performed under general anesthesia and planned for a nasotracheal intubation. The inclusion criteria for the study will be as follows: planned for a general anesthetic with nasotracheal intubation, ASA I and II and at least 18 years of age. Prisoners and patients with anticipated difficult airways will be excluded from this study.
Study Design This will be a single center, parallel group, unblinded randomized controlled trial with an allocation ratio of 1:1. Because the investigators hypothesized that video-assisted laryngoscopy would increase the rate of success of intubation on the first attempt and previous data shows this trend in a similar patient population (Tabrizi et al 2018), this trial will be designed to assess for superiority of the video-assisted laryngoscopy. One of the investigators will explain the risks and benefits of participation in the study in detail to each patient and patients will be enrolled in the study after signing informed consent. A co-investigator, not involved with enrollment or the anesthetic, will use a computerized research randomization software (www.randomizer.org) to perform block randomization with randomly varying block sizes of 2, 4 and 6. Then, he will place a paper with the group allocation written on it into sequentially numbered envelopes in the order determined by the randomization software. The group allocation will be concealed by using opaque envelopes that will be sealed after the paper with the group assignment is placed in the envelope. When a patient is enrolled in the study, the next envelope in the sequence will be labeled with the patient's study ID and opened by the principal investigator, who ensured the anesthetic team then performed the technique for intubation assigned to the patient. The direct, or conventional, laryngoscopy group will undergo the planned nasotracheal intubation utilizing a Macintosh or Miller laryngoscope for direct visualization of the larynx. The video-assisted laryngoscopy group will undergo the planned nasotracheal intubation utilizing a Storz C-MAC S Video Laryngoscope to allow for indirect visualization of the larynx.
Variables The primary outcome variable will be the success of first attempt intubation. Success of intubation will be defined as confirmed placement of the endotracheal tube by bilateral breath sounds, end-tidal CO2 waveform and lack of cuff leak. The secondary outcome variables will be the amount of time required to secure the nasotracheal tube, the use of Macgill forceps, the success at first attempt, the number of attempts, the number of endotracheal tube exchanges after placement and the number of torn endotracheal tube cuffs. Time for intubation will be recorded for each case by an independent observer using a stopwatch which will start upon removal of the bag mask and will end after the anesthesiologist confirmed bilateral breath sounds, an end-tidal CO2 waveform and lack of cuff leak. Use of Macgill forceps will be recorded by an independent observer upon their use during intubation. An attempt at intubation will be considered failed when the laryngoscope is removed from the mouth prior to insertion of the endotracheal tube and bask mask ventilation is restarted. Tube exchanges will likewise be recorded if they occur.
The predictor variable will be the laryngoscopy technique employed: video-assisted laryngoscopy (the experimental group) or direct Macintosh or Miller laryngoscopy (the control group). Other variables that will be recorded are age, gender, ASA score and procedure performed.
Sample Size Calculation The sample size for the study was calculated based on a difference of 10% in first attempt success rate between groups. The investigators regarded this amount of time as the smallest meaningful difference. Previously published reports was used to base the sample size calculation, using a success rate of 82% and 60% for first attempt at video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy, respectively. An estimated sample size of 48 patients (24 in each arm) will be needed to detect a difference of 10% in first attempt success rate between the groups with an 80% power and alpha level of 0.05. [A previously published study (Rabrizi et al 2018) assessed first attempt success rate in patients with bilateral mandibular fractures in Glidescope video laryngoscopy versus Macintosh laryngoscopy. They found a first attempt success rate of 82% using a video laryngoscopy versus 60% using direct laryngoscopy.] Data Collection and Analysis To organize data collection, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet will be created and used to record information, which will be kept on a secured LSU drive which only the investigators have access to. Data will be compiled and imported into JMP Statistical Discovery for analysis (JMP, Version 12.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 1989-2015). The relationship of the primary outcome variable to the primary predictor will be analyzed using Chi squared tests. The relationship of the secondary outcome variables to the primary predictor will be analyzed using Chi squared tests and t tests, as appropriate for the data type. Study variables will be examined for their relationship to the primary predictor and primary outcome using t test, Chi squared test and ANOVA as appropriate for the type of variable. A p-value of less than 0.05 will be considered significant.
- Conditions
- Intubation, Intratracheal
- Being tested
- Video Laryngoscopy, Direct Laryngoscopy
- Keywords
- Video laryngoscopy, Nasal intubation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Video LaryngoscopyProcedure or surgery
The direct, or conventional, laryngoscopy group will undergo the planned nasotracheal intubation utilizing a Macintosh or Miller laryngoscope for direct visualization of the larynx.
Direct LaryngoscopyProcedure or surgery
The video-assisted laryngoscopy group will undergo the planned nasotracheal intubation utilizing a Storz C-MAC S Video Laryngoscope to allow for indirect visualization of the larynx.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Video Laryngoscopy | Experimental | Not described Receives: Procedure: Video Laryngoscopy |
| Direct Laryngoscopy | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Procedure: Direct Laryngoscopy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
success of first attempt intubation
defined as confirmed placement of the endotracheal tube by bilateral breath sounds, end-tidal CO2 waveform and lack of cuff leak
Measured: 1 day
Secondary outcomes (7)
amount of time required to secure the nasotracheal tube
amount of time required to secure the nasotracheal tube
Measured: 1 day
the use of Macgill forceps
the use of Macgill forceps
Measured: 1 day
success at first attempt
success at first attempt
Measured: 1 day
number of attempts
number of attempts
Measured: 1 day
number of endotracheal tube exchanges after placement
number of endotracheal tube exchanges after placement
Measured: 1 day
number of torn endotracheal tube cuffs
number of torn endotracheal tube cuffs
Measured: 1 day
Cormack-Lehane score
Cormack-Lehane score
Measured: 1 day
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Dec 2018
- Study start19 Dec 2018
- Primary completionJun 2019 (estimated)
- Study completionAug 2019 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Intubation, IntratrachealStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Brett King, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03775317
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 10272
- Status last verified
- Mar 2019
- First submitted
- 11 Dec 2018
- Last updated
- 15 Mar 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 Mar 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of Video-assisted Laryngoscopy and Direct Laryngoscopy for Routine Nasotracheal Intubation in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Patients: a Randomized Controlled Trial.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03775317
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 10272
- Conditions
- Intubation, Intratracheal
- Keywords
- Video laryngoscopy, Nasal intubation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in New OrleansUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 19 Dec 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Jun 2019 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Aug 2019 (estimated)
- First posted
- 13 Dec 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Nasotracheal intubation is a common method for securing an advanced airway during surgery for procedures that involve manipulation of the oral cavity, the dentition, or the facial bones. The placement of a nasotracheal tube is often more challenging, especially for learning providers, even for patients with normal airway anatomy. Video laryngoscopy is an adjunctive technique in anesthesia that utilizes a camera at the tip of the laryngoscope blade and provides an indirect view of the glottis during intubation through display on a monitor. The use of video laryngoscopes has been shown to reduce time to intubation, result in perception of easier intubation by the anesthesia team, and reduce the use of adjunctive maneuvers during intubation. There is little evidence, however, to show these benefits for routine nasotracheal intubation. The purpose of the study is to compare the ease of video-assisted laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy in routine nasotracheal intubation for Maxillofacial procedures. The investigators hypothesize that the use of video-assisted laryngoscopy for routine nasotracheal intubation will result in quicker time to intubation, less adjunctive maneuvers and anesthesia perception of easier intubation when compared to direct nasotrahceal intubation. The investigators aim to compare the time to intubation, number of adjunctive maneuvers and the perception of intubation difficulty in routine nasotracheal intubation for Maxillofacial procedures for video-assisted laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy.
Detailed description
Comparison of video-assisted laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for routine nasotracheal intubation in oral and maxillofacial surgery patients: a randomized controlled trial.
INTRODUCTION Nasotracheal intubation is a common method for securing an advanced airway during surgery for procedures that involve manipulation of the oral cavity, the dentition, or the facial bones. The placement of a nasotracheal tube is often more challenging, especially for learning providers, even for patients with normal airway anatomy. Video laryngoscopy is an adjunctive technique in anesthesia that utilizes a camera at the tip of the laryngoscope blade and provides an indirect view of the glottis during intubation through display on a monitor. The use of video laryngoscopes has been shown to reduce time to intubation, result in perception of easier intubation by the anesthesia team, and reduce the use of adjunctive maneuvers during intubation. There is little evidence, however, to show these benefits for routine nasotracheal intubation. The purpose of the study is to compare the ease of video-assisted laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy in routine nasotracheal intubation for Maxillofacial procedures. The investigators hypothesize that the use of video-assisted laryngoscopy for routine nasotracheal intubation will increase the rate of success on first intubation attempt, result in quicker time to intubation, less adjunctive maneuvers and anesthesia perception of easier intubation when compared to direct nasotrahceal intubation. The investigators aim to compare the rate of first attempt intubation success, time to intubation, number of adjunctive maneuvers and the perception of intubation difficulty in routine nasotracheal intubation for Maxillofacial procedures for video-assisted laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy.
METHODS Study Sample After obtaining institutional review board approval (IRB #10272), the authors will design a randomized clinical trial. The eligible study population will include all patients who presented to University Medical Center in New Orleans, LA for oral and maxillofacial surgery to be performed under general anesthesia and planned for a nasotracheal intubation. The inclusion criteria for the study will be as follows: planned for a general anesthetic with nasotracheal intubation, ASA I and II and at least 18 years of age. Prisoners and patients with anticipated difficult airways will be excluded from this study.
Study Design This will be a single center, parallel group, unblinded randomized controlled trial with an allocation ratio of 1:1. Because the investigators hypothesized that video-assisted laryngoscopy would increase the rate of success of intubation on the first attempt and previous data shows this trend in a similar patient population (Tabrizi et al 2018), this trial will be designed to assess for superiority of the video-assisted laryngoscopy. One of the investigators will explain the risks and benefits of participation in the study in detail to each patient and patients will be enrolled in the study after signing informed consent. A co-investigator, not involved with enrollment or the anesthetic, will use a computerized research randomization software (www.randomizer.org) to perform block randomization with randomly varying block sizes of 2, 4 and 6. Then, he will place a paper with the group allocation written on it into sequentially numbered envelopes in the order determined by the randomization software. The group allocation will be concealed by using opaque envelopes that will be sealed after the paper with the group assignment is placed in the envelope. When a patient is enrolled in the study, the next envelope in the sequence will be labeled with the patient's study ID and opened by the principal investigator, who ensured the anesthetic team then performed the technique for intubation assigned to the patient. The direct, or conventional, laryngoscopy group will undergo the planned nasotracheal intubation utilizing a Macintosh or Miller laryngoscope for direct visualization of the larynx. The video-assisted laryngoscopy group will undergo the planned nasotracheal intubation utilizing a Storz C-MAC S Video Laryngoscope to allow for indirect visualization of the larynx.
Variables The primary outcome variable will be the success of first attempt intubation. Success of intubation will be defined as confirmed placement of the endotracheal tube by bilateral breath sounds, end-tidal CO2 waveform and lack of cuff leak. The secondary outcome variables will be the amount of time required to secure the nasotracheal tube, the use of Macgill forceps, the success at first attempt, the number of attempts, the number of endotracheal tube exchanges after placement and the number of torn endotracheal tube cuffs. Time for intubation will be recorded for each case by an independent observer using a stopwatch which will start upon removal of the bag mask and will end after the anesthesiologist confirmed bilateral breath sounds, an end-tidal CO2 waveform and lack of cuff leak. Use of Macgill forceps will be recorded by an independent observer upon their use during intubation. An attempt at intubation will be considered failed when the laryngoscope is removed from the mouth prior to insertion of the endotracheal tube and bask mask ventilation is restarted. Tube exchanges will likewise be recorded if they occur.
The predictor variable will be the laryngoscopy technique employed: video-assisted laryngoscopy (the experimental group) or direct Macintosh or Miller laryngoscopy (the control group). Other variables that will be recorded are age, gender, ASA score and procedure performed.
Sample Size Calculation The sample size for the study was calculated based on a difference of 10% in first attempt success rate between groups. The investigators regarded this amount of time as the smallest meaningful difference. Previously published reports was used to base the sample size calculation, using a success rate of 82% and 60% for first attempt at video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy, respectively. An estimated sample size of 48 patients (24 in each arm) will be needed to detect a difference of 10% in first attempt success rate between the groups with an 80% power and alpha level of 0.05. [A previously published study (Rabrizi et al 2018) assessed first attempt success rate in patients with bilateral mandibular fractures in Glidescope video laryngoscopy versus Macintosh laryngoscopy. They found a first attempt success rate of 82% using a video laryngoscopy versus 60% using direct laryngoscopy.] Data Collection and Analysis To organize data collection, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet will be created and used to record information, which will be kept on a secured LSU drive which only the investigators have access to. Data will be compiled and imported into JMP Statistical Discovery for analysis (JMP, Version 12.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 1989-2015). The relationship of the primary outcome variable to the primary predictor will be analyzed using Chi squared tests. The relationship of the secondary outcome variables to the primary predictor will be analyzed using Chi squared tests and t tests, as appropriate for the data type. Study variables will be examined for their relationship to the primary predictor and primary outcome using t test, Chi squared test and ANOVA as appropriate for the type of variable. A p-value of less than 0.05 will be considered significant.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Video Laryngoscopy | Experimental | Procedure: Video Laryngoscopy |
| Direct Laryngoscopy | Active comparator | Procedure: Direct Laryngoscopy |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- oral and maxillofacial surgery to be performed under general anesthesia
- planned for a general anesthetic with nasotracheal intubation,
- ASA I and II
- at least 18 years of age
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- prisoners
- anticipated difficult airways
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Video LaryngoscopyThe direct, or conventional, laryngoscopy group will undergo the planned nasotracheal intubation utilizing a Macintosh or Miller laryngoscope for direct visualization of the larynx. | Procedure or surgery | Video Laryngoscopy |
| Direct LaryngoscopyThe video-assisted laryngoscopy group will undergo the planned nasotracheal intubation utilizing a Storz C-MAC S Video Laryngoscope to allow for indirect visualization of the larynx. | Procedure or surgery | Direct Laryngoscopy |
Primary outcome
success of first attempt intubation
Time frame: 1 day
defined as confirmed placement of the endotracheal tube by bilateral breath sounds, end-tidal CO2 waveform and lack of cuff leak
7 secondary outcomes
amount of time required to secure the nasotracheal tube
Time frame: 1 day
the use of Macgill forceps
Time frame: 1 day
success at first attempt
Time frame: 1 day
number of attempts
Time frame: 1 day
number of endotracheal tube exchanges after placement
Time frame: 1 day
number of torn endotracheal tube cuffs
Time frame: 1 day
Cormack-Lehane score
Time frame: 1 day
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 15 Mar 2019.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Intubation, Intratracheal
Not yet recruitingObservational study
AI-assisted Tracheal Intubation in Children
Intubation
Not yet recruiting
AI Smart Glasses Feedback for Intubation Training in Medical Students
Intubation, Intratracheal, Medical Education
Recruiting
Development and Preliminary Validation of Intelligent Video Laryngoscope for Emergency Use
Critically Ill Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation
Recruiting
Effect of a Brief Educational Intervention on Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure
Intubation, Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure
Recruiting
Hyperangulated vs Standard Videolaryngoscopy vs Direct Laryngoscopy for Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tube Intubation
Endobronchial Intubation, Double Lumen Tube Intubation
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Video Laryngoscopy and Direct Laryngoscopy in people with Intubation, Intratracheal, run by Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans at 1 site in United States.
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 4 inclusion and 2 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 15 Mar 2019. 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 United States. 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?
Each site lists its own contact: choose the nearest one under Trial locations. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
success of first attempt intubation (time frame: 1 day). 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 15 Mar 2019.