Randomized comparison of the i-gel(TM) with the LMA Supreme (TM) in anesthetized adult patients

A Retrospective Nationwide Comparison of the iGel and King Laryngeal Tube Supraglottic Airways for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation

INTRODUCTION

While various supraglottic airway devices are available for use during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation, comparisons of patient outcomes by device are limited. In this study, we aimed to compare outcomes of OHCA patients who had airway management by emergency medical services (EMS) with the iGel or King-LT.

METHODS

We used the 2018-2021 ESO Data Collaborative public use research datasets for this retrospective study. All patients with non-traumatic OHCA who had iGels or King-LTs inserted by EMS were included. Our primary outcome was survival to discharge to home, and secondary outcomes included first-pass success, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and prehospital rearrest. We examined the association between airway device and each outcome using two-level mixed effects logistic regression with EMS agency as the random effect, adjusted for standard Utstein variables and failed intubation prior to supraglottic airway insertion. Average treatment effects were calculated through propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 286,192 OHCA patients were screened, resulting in 93,866 patients eligible for inclusion in this analysis. A total of 9,456 transported patients (59.8% iGel) had associated hospital disposition data. Use of the iGel was associated with greater survival to discharge to home (aOR:1.36 [1.06, 1.76]; ATE: 2.2%[+0.5, +3.8]; n = 7,576), first pass airway success (aOR:1.94 [1.79, 2.09]; n = 73,658), and ROSC (aOR:1.19 [1.13, 1.26]; n = 73,207) in comparison to airway management with the King-LT. iGel use was associated with lower odds of experiencing a rearrest (aOR:0.73 [0.67, 0.79]; n = 20,776). Among patients who received a supraglottic device as a primary airway, use of the iGel was not associated with significantly greater survival to discharge to home (aOR:1.26 [0.95, 1.68]). Among patients who received a supraglottic device as a rescue airway following failed intubation, use of the iGel was associated with greater odds of survival to discharge to home (aOR:2.16 [1.15, 4.04]).

CONCLUSION

In this dataset, use of the iGel during adult OHCA resuscitation was associated overall with better outcomes compared to use of the King-LT. Subgroup analyses suggested that use of the iGel was associated with greater odds of achieving the primary outcome than the King-LT when used as a rescue device but not when used as the primary airway management device.

Effectiveness of the Baska mask versus the i-gel device in adult patients under general anesthesia: a systematic review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to evaluate the ease of use, effectiveness of airway management, and incidence of perioperative complications of the Baska mask compared to the i-gel device in adult patients undergoing elective procedures with general anesthesia.

INTRODUCTION

Supraglottic airway devices have been widely used for airway management in patients undergoing various surgical procedures under general anesthesia. The Baska mask and the i-gel device are two commonly used second-generation supraglottic airway devices that offer a noninvasive alternative to the endotracheal tube given the ease of insertion, rapidity, low risk of postoperative complications, and reduced autonomic imbalance during insertion. However, there is a dearth of studies comparing the clinical performance of these two devices.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review will consider studies with adults aged 18 years or older who underwent elective surgical procedures under general anesthesia and received ventilation with the Baska mask or i-gel. Only randomized controlled trials comparing the two devices will be considered.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, OpenGrey, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses will be searched to identify both published and unpublished studies. Titles and abstracts will be screened to identify potentially relevant papers. Retrieval of full-text studies, assessment of methodological quality, and data extraction will be performed independently by two reviewers. Data will be synthesized using statistical meta-analysis with heterogeneity of data being assessed using the standard chi-squared and I2 tests, if possible.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42020168774.

Supraglottic airway devices: current and future uses

Supraglottic airway devices have increasingly been used in anaesthesia since their invention in 1982. Now over half of general anaesthetic cases in the UK use them, and they have vital roles in difficult airway algorithms, pre-hospital use and emergency medicine. This article presents the current evidence regarding the complications of these devices, and compares these devices and endotracheal intubation. The technology of the newer generation devices has improved the safety profile, and they may be considered a better choice than endotracheal tubes in some cases. There may be a case for using these devices in a wider range of surgical and non-surgical cases.

[Update Mallampati : Theoretical and practical knowledge of European anesthetists on basic evaluation of airways]

In 1985 Mallampati et al. published a non-invasive score for the evaluation of airways (Mallampati grading scale, MGS), which originally consisted of only three different classes and has been modified several times. At present it is mostly used in the version of Samsoon and Young consisting of four different classes. Class I: soft palate, fauces, uvula, palatopharyngeal arch visible, class II: soft palate, fauces, uvula visible, class III: soft palate, base of the uvula visible and class IV: soft palate not visible. Nevertheless, other versions of MGS still exist, each having different values for sensitivity and specification. The current opinion is therefore that MGS is no longer useful as a stand-alone predictor but in combination with others it is still part of today's most relevant guidelines, such as those of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), the UK's Difficult Airway Society (DAS), the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) and the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) and must therefore be known by anesthetists. Even in times of sophisticated tools for airway management, the procedure remains a high risk, so every anesthetist has to be prepared for and well trained in management of known and unexpected difficult airways. Evaluation of the patient's airway is a part of modern airway management to prevent problems and reduce risk of hypoxia during the procedure. The theoretical knowledge and practical skills of European anesthetists were evaluated at two international congresses, the German Anesthesia Congress (DAC) and Euroanaesthesia 2014. The DAC is an annual meeting of German speaking anesthetists, hosted by the DGAI. The Euroanaesthesia is the annual European pendant hosted by the ESA. Participation was voluntary and only physicians were allowed to take part. Theory was evaluated by a questionnaire containing open and closed questions for MGS that had to be answered by every participant alone. Apart from theory, a practical evaluation was performed. Every participant had to classify the MGS of a human airway model. The model was identical on both congresses. According to the original publication a checklist containing the factors essential for the correct performance was filled out by a supervising experienced anesthetist. During DAC 2014 n = 267 physicians participated in the study, 22 participants were excluded due to inconsistent answers, incomplete questionnaires or missing practical part. A total of 245 data sets were evaluated. During Euroanaesthesia 2014 n = 298 physicians participated in the study, 68 participants were excluded due to inconsistent answers, incomplete questionnaires or missing practical part and 230 data sets were evaluated. At the DAC the mean age (± SD) was 44.5 ± 9.5 years, 157 (64.1%) were male and 88 (35.9%) were female. Working experience was trainee anesthetist in 16.7% and other participants were experienced anesthetists. At the ESA the mean age (± SD) was 42.4 ± 9.5 years, 133 (57.8%) were male and 97 (42.2%) female. Trainee anesthetists were 15.2%, the rest were experienced anesthetists. The DAC participants knew Mallampati classes 1 (65%) and 4 (45%) better than 2 and 3 and there was no relevant differences to the ESA (close to 30% knew the classes 1-4 here). Classification of the airway model was correct in 62% and 67% at DAC and ESA, respectively. Most participants performed the practical evaluation correctly except the sitting position of the model. In agreement with earlier studies, these results show the lack of knowledge in evaluation of airways according to current guidelines of all relevant societies. This is likely to increase preventable risks for patients as unexpected difficult airway management increases the risk for hypoxia and intubation damage.

Thyromental distance ("Patil") revisited : Knowledge and performance of a basic airway screening tool among European anesthetists

Predicting and managing the difficult airway is a lifesaving and vital basic task for the anesthetist. Current guidelines of all important societies include thyromental distance (TMD, "Patil") as a possible predictor for a difficult airway and includes two important aspects for airway management: the mandibular space and the flexibility of the cervical spine. We evaluated knowledge and execution regarding TMD for predicting a difficult airway on participants at the Euroanaesthesia (ESA) congress and German Anaesthesia Congress (DAC) in 2014. Our evaluation consisted of a theoretical part with questions regarding general knowledge and a practical evaluation with anesthetists performing on a human airway model. Practical evaluations were performed separately from other participants. During the DAC 245 (ESA 230) physicians participated, of which 64% were male (ESA 58%). At the DAC 182 (74.3%) and ESA 82 (35.6%) participants knew about Patil/TMD. Its use as a predictive score for a difficult airway was known by 122 (49.8%; DAC) and 79 (34.4%; ESA) participants. The correct definition for intubation was given by 45 (25.7%) at the DAC and 56 (24.3%) at ESA. Only 40-41% of the participants measured the correct distance for TMD. Only 6.1-6.5% completed both the theoretical and practical parts correctly. As non-invasive TMD includes two different aspects of patient airways and is part of current guidelines, education and training must be extended to assure adequate evaluation in the future.

Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure of air-Q™, i-gel™, and laryngeal mask airway supreme™ in adult patients during general anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial

Study Objective:

Various randomized controlled trials and a meta-analysis have compared i-gel™ and laryngeal mask airway Supreme™ (LMA-S™) in adult patients and found that both the devices provided equivalent oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). However, no randomized controlled trial has compared air-Q™ with i-gel™ and LMA-S™ in adult patient. Hence, we designed this study to compare air-Q™ with LMA-S™ and i-gel™ in adult patients.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 75 adult patients of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II of both sexes, between 18 and 60 years, were included in this prospective randomized controlled trial conducted in a tertiary care center. Randomization of patients was done in three equal groups according to the insertion of supraglottic airway device by a computer-generated random number sequence: group air-Q™ (n = 25), group i-gel™ (n = 25), and group LMA-S™ (n = 25). Primary outcome of this study was OLP. We also recorded time for successful placement of device, ease of device insertion, number of attempts to insert device, and ease of gastric tube insertion along with postoperative complications.

Results:

The mean ± standard deviation OLP of air-Q™, i-gel™, and LMA-S™ was 26.13 ± 4.957 cm, 23.75 ± 5.439 cm, and 24.80 ± 4.78 cm H₂O (P = 0.279). The first insertion success rate for air-Q™, i-gel™, and LMA-S™ was 80%, 76%, and 92%, respectively (P = 0.353). The insertion time of air-Q™, i-gel™, and LMA-S™ was 20.6 ± 4.4, 14.8 ± 5.4, and 15.2 ± 4.7 s, respectively (P = 0.000). Time taken for air-Q™ insertion was significantly higher than time taken for i-gel™ (mean difference 5.8 s, P < 0.0001) and LMA-S™ (mean difference 5.4 s, P = 0.0001) insertion. Postoperative complications were similar with all three devices.

Conclusions:

We concluded that air-Q™, i-gel™, and LMA-S™ were equally efficacious in terms of routine airway management in adult patients with normal airway anatomy.