Uncuffed Endotracheal Tube vs. no Endotracheal Tube

Purpose

This is a comparison of uncuffed endotracheal tube (UCETT) vs. no endotracheal tube (ETT) in endobronchial ultrasound-transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) procedure under moderate sedation in terms of procedure tolerance, duration of the procedure, desaturation, amount of sedation medication usage.

Condition

  • Multiple Pulmonary Diseases

Eligibility

Eligible Ages
Over 18 Years
Eligible Genders
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No

Inclusion Criteria

  • Any patient that is scheduled for EBUS-TBNA procedure

Exclusion Criteria

  • Those who are not safe to receive moderate sedation or flexible bronchoscopy

Study Design

Phase
N/A
Study Type
Interventional
Allocation
N/A
Intervention Model
Parallel Assignment
Intervention Model Description
Patient will be randomized 1:1 to UCETT vs no ETT (current standard procedure) when they scheduled for the EBUS-TBNA procedure.
Primary Purpose
Health Services Research
Masking
None (Open Label)

Arm Groups

ArmDescriptionAssigned Intervention
Experimental
uncuffed endotracheal group
  • Device: Endotracheal tube
    participants either receive the ETT during the procedure
No Intervention
no endotracheal tube group/control

Recruiting Locations

University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
Contact:
Isaac Hoff, BS
612-626-7061
hoffx166@umn.edu

More Details

NCT ID
NCT06799455
Status
Recruiting
Sponsor
University of Minnesota

Study Contact

Jamie Heisdorffer
curre024@umn.edu

For help using this page: trialstoday@researchmatch.org or call 855-514-7001

ResearchMatch is funded in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program, led by the NIH’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), grants UL1TR000445 and 1U54RR032646-01, and grant U24TR001579 from NCATS and the National Library of Medicine. The content of this website is solely the responsibility of ResearchMatch and Vanderbilt University and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH, NCATS, or NLM.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center