Efficacy and safety of three inflation methods of the laryngeal mask airway Ambu® Auraonce™: a randomized controlled study

The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is commonly used for airway management. Cuff hyperinflation has been associated with complications, poor ventilation and increased risk of gastric insufflation. This study was designed to determine the best cuff inflation method of AuraOnce™ LMA during bronchoscopy and EBUS (Endobronquial Ultrasound Bronchoscopy) procedure. We designed a Randomized controlled, doble-blind, clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of three cuff inflation methods of AuraOnce™ LMA. 210 consenting patients scheduled for EBUS procedure under general anesthesia, using AuraOnce™ LMA were randomized into three groups depending on cuff insufflation: residual volume (RV), half of the maximum volume (MV), unchanged volume (NV). Parameters regarding intracuff pressure (IP), airway leak pressure (OLP), leakage volume (LV) were assessed, as well as postoperative complications (PC). 201 (95.7%) patients completed the study. Mean IP differed between groups (MV: 59.4 ± 32.4 cm H2O; RV: 75.1 ± 21.1 cm H2O; NV: 83.1 ± 25.5 cmH20; P < 0.01). The incidence of IP > 60 cmH2O was lower in the MV group compared to the other two (MV: 20/65(30.8%); RV:47/69 (68.1%); NV 48/67 (71.6%); p < 0.01). The insertion success rate was 89,6% (180/201) at first attempt, with no difference between groups (p = 0.38). No difference between groups was found either for OLP (p = 0.53), LV (p = 0.26) and PC (p = 0.16). When a cuff manometer is not available, a partial inflation of AuraOnce™ LMA cuff using MV method allows to control intracuff pressure, with no significant changes of OLP and LV compared to RV and NV insufflation method.Registration clinical trial: NCT04769791.

Comparison of the supraglottic airway device BlockBusterTM and laryngeal mask airway Supreme in anaesthetised, paralyzed adult patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This multicenter prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial compared the clinical performance of supraglottic airway device (SAD) BlockBuster^TM and laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Supreme for airway maintenance in anesthetized, paralyzed adult patients.

METHODS

A total of 651 adult patients scheduled for elective surgery in 13 hospitals were randomly allocated into BlockBuster group (n = 351) or Supreme group (n = 300). The primary outcome was oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). Duration and ease of insertion, fiberscopic view of positioning, airway manipulations, and complications were also assessed.

RESULTS

The OLP was significantly higher in BlockBuster group compared with Supreme group (29.9 ± 4.2 cmH₂O vs 27.4 ± 4.3 cmH₂O, p < 0.001). Success rate of insertion at the first attempt (90.2% vs 85.1%, p = 0.027), rate of optimal fiberscopic view (p = 0.002) and satisfactory positioning of SAD (p < 0.001) were significantly increased in BlockBuster group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both SAD BlockBuster^TM and LMA Supreme are safe, effective, and easy-to-use devices for airway maintenance in anesthetized, paralyzed adult patients, but the SAD BlockBuster^TM is superior to LMA Supreme in terms of OLP, success rate at the first attempt, and fiber-optic view of positioning.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR-ONC-16009105).

Comparison of the efficacy of supraglottic airway devices in low-risk adult patients: a network meta-analysis and systematic review

Numerous supraglottic airway device (SADs) have been designed for adults; however, their relative efficacy, indicated by parameters such as adequacy of sealing, ease of application, and postinsertion complications, remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of various SADs. We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials comparing at least two types of SADs published before December 2019. The primary outcomes were oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), risk of first-attempt insertion failure, and postoperative sore throat rate (POST). We included 108 studies (n = 10,645) comparing 17 types of SAD. The Proseal laryngeal mask airway (LMA), the I-gel supraglottic airway, the Supreme LMA, the Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway, the SoftSeal, the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway, the Air-Q, the Laryngeal Tube, the Laryngeal Tube Suction II, the Laryngeal Tube Suction Disposable, AuraGain, and Protector had significantly higher OLP (mean difference ranging from 3.98 to 9.18 cmH₂O) compared with that of a classic LMA (C-LMA). The Protector exhibited the highest OLP and was ranked first. All SADs had a similar likelihood of first-attempt insertion failure and POST compared with the C-LMA. Our findings indicate that the Protector may be the best SAD because it has the highest OLP.Systematic review registration PROSPERO: CRD42017065273.

Gnana Laryngeal Airway in Clinical Practice: A Prospective Observational Study

Objective

The Gnana Laryngeal Airway (GLA) device, a novel supraglottic airway device, is similar to the LMA-Classic in basic design, but with an additional suction port on the convex portion of the laryngeal mask to remove the saliva. We evaluated the GLA device in terms of ease and time to insertion, the number of attempts, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), correct placement, and complications in adult patients undergoing elective surgical procedures.

Methods

After general anaesthesia, the GLA device was inserted in ASA Class I–II consecutive patients aged 18–60 years, who were scheduled for elective surgeries lasting <2h. An independent observer noted (1) 10 consecutive successful GLA device insertions, all on the first attempt; (2) 10 consecutive device insertions, each <20 second in duration; and (3) 10 consecutive patients with the mean leak <10%. The criteria were fulfilled in 50 consecutive patients.

Results

In 72% of patients, the GLA device was successfully placed on the first attempt and was effortless in 64%. Between the first 10 and last 10 consecutive patients of the total 50, the ease-of-insertion grade progressively decreased (mean±standard deviation [SD]: 2.80±0.25 to 1.30±0.15, p<0.0001) and so did insertion time in seconds (28.70±1.87 to 14.20±0.79, p<0.0001). The post-insertion, OLP and airway compliance progressively increased, while the cuff inflation volume, peak airway pressure and airway resistance progressively decreased, along with minimal side effects and malposition.

Conclusion

The GLA device insertion became progressively easier and faster; thus, such a device is promising and warrants further clinical evaluation.

Scandinavian SSAI clinical practice guideline on pre-hospital airway management

Background

The Scandinavian society of anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine task force on pre‐hospital airway management was asked to formulate recommendations following standards for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines.

Methods

The literature was systematically reviewed and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations.

Results

We recommend that all emergency medical service (EMS) providers consider to: apply basic airway manoeuvres and airway adjuncts (good practice recommendation); turn unconscious non‐trauma patients into the recovery position when advanced airway management is unavailable (good practice recommendation); turn unconscious trauma patients to the lateral trauma position while maintaining spinal alignment when advanced airway management is unavailable [strong recommendation, low quality of evidence (QoE)]. We suggest that intermediately trained providers use a supraglottic airway device (SAD) or basic airway manoeuvres on patients in cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, low QoE). We recommend that advanced trained providers consider using an SAD in selected indications or as a rescue device after failed endotracheal intubation (ETI) (good practice recommendation). We recommend that ETI should only be performed by advanced trained providers (strong recommendation, low QoE). We suggest that videolaryngoscopy is considered for ETI when direct laryngoscopy fails or is expected to be difficult (weak recommendation, low QoE). We suggest that advanced trained providers apply cricothyroidotomy in ‘cannot intubate, cannot ventilate’ situations (weak recommendation, low QoE).

Conclusion

This guideline for pre‐hospital airway management includes a combination of techniques applied in a stepwise fashion appropriate to patient clinical status and provider training.

Comparison of air-Q and Ambu Aura-i for controlled ventilation in infants: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The air-Q is a new supraglottic airway device (SAD) and has been increasingly used as a primary airway device and as a conduit for tracheal intubation in children as well as in adults. This device has either performed equally or better than other SADs in children. The Ambu Aura-i is a commonly used SAD in children undergoing various short surgical procedures. However, limited literature is available evaluating the safety and efficacy of the air-Q and the Ambu Aura-i in small children. We, therefore, conducted this study to compare the clinical performance of these two airway devices in infants weighing up to 10 kg. Our hypothesis is that air-Q, due to its improved and larger cuff design will yield better airway seal pressures as compared with the Ambu Aura-i.

METHODS

Sixty-four ASA I-II infants weighing <10 kg undergoing elective ophthalmic surgery were randomly assigned to receive either an air-Q or the Ambu Aura-i. After induction of general anesthesia (GA) and muscle relaxation, we measured oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) as the primary outcome. The secondary end points measured were time to insert, first insertion success rate, fiberoptic grade (FO) of laryngeal view and any other airway complications like trauma, laryngospasm, and desaturation.

RESULTS

The air-Q ILA provided significantly higher OLP as compared with the Ambu Aura-i [20.2 ± 4.6 cm H2 O, CI 18.55-21.88; vs 16.2 ± 5.6 cmH2 O, CI 14.27-18.25, P = 0.003; mean difference 4 ± 1.29 cm H2 O, CI 1.41-6.58]. However, the Ambu Aura-i required significantly less time for its insertion (14.6 ± 2.8 s, CI 13.66-15.70; vs 16.3 ± 1.5 s, CI 15.75-16.86, P = 0.005; mean difference 1.625 ±  0.56 s, CI 0.48-2.76). There were no differences in first insertion success rate, FO view, and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that air-Q may be considered superior to Ambu Aura-i in infants for controlled ventilation as it provides higher airway sealing pressures.