Evaluation of the optimal cuff volume and cuff pressure of the revised laryngeal tube "LTS-D" in surgical patients

Executive Summary of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR) Spanish Society of Emergency and Emergency Medicine (SEMES) and Spanish Society of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) Guideline for difficult airway management

The Airway section of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), Spanish Society of Emergency and Emergency Medicine (SEMES) and Spanish Society of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) present the Guidelines for the integral management of difficult airway in adult patients. This document provides recommendations based on current scientific evidence, theoretical-educational tools and implementation tools, mainly cognitive aids, applicable to the treatment of the airway in the field of anesthesiology, critical care, emergencies and prehospital medicine. Its principles are focused on the human factors, cognitive processes for decision-making in critical situations and optimization in the progression of the application of strategies to preserve adequate alveolar oxygenation in order to improve safety and quality of care.

Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), Spanish Society of Emergency and Emergency Medicine (SEMES) and Spanish Society of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) Guideline for difficult airway management. Part II

The Airway Management section of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES), and the Spanish Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) present the Guide for the comprehensive management of difficult airway in adult patients. Its principles are focused on the human factors, cognitive processes for decision-making in critical situations, and optimization in the progression of strategies application to preserve adequate alveolar oxygenation in order to enhance safety and the quality of care. The document provides evidence-based recommendations, theoretical-educational tools, and implementation tools, mainly cognitive aids, applicable to airway management in the fields of anesthesiology, critical care, emergencies, and prehospital medicine. For this purpose, an extensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA-R guidelines and was analyzed using the GRADE methodology. Recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE methodology. Recommendations for sections with low-quality evidence were based on expert opinion through consensus reached via a Delphi questionnaire.

Does the revised intubating laryngeal tube (ILTS-D2) perform better than the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach)? - a randomised simulation research study

BACKGROUND

The intubating laryngeal tube (ILTS-D™) and the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach™) are devices that facilitate both extraglottic application and blind tracheal intubation. A revised model of the iLTS-D (for scientific reasons called ILTS-D2) has been designed but not yet evaluated. Therefore, we compared the ILTS-D2 with the established Fastrach under controlled conditions in a prospective randomised controlled simulation research study.

METHODS

After ethical approval, we randomised 126 medical students into two groups. Each participant received either Fastrach or ILTS-D2 to perform five consecutive ventilation attempts in a manikin. The primary endpoint was the time to ventilation in the last attempt of using the devices as extraglottic devices. Secondary endpoints were the time to tracheal intubation and the success rates.

RESULTS

There was no relevant difference between the two devices in the time to ventilation in the last of five attempts (Fastrach: median 14 s [IQR: 12-15]; ILTS-D2: median 13 s [IQR: 12-15], p = 0.592). Secondary endpoints showed a 2 s faster blind tracheal intubation using the Fastrach than using the ILTS-D2 (Fastrach: median 14 s [IQR: 13-17]; ILTS-D2: median 16 s [IQR: 15-20] p < 0.001). For both devices, the success rates were 100% in the last attempt.

CONCLUSIONS

Concerning extraglottic airway management, we could not detect a relevant difference between the revised ILTS-D2 and the Fastrach under laboratory conditions. We advocate for an evaluation of the ILTS-D2 in randomised controlled clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Identifier at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03542747. May 31, 2018.