The Professional Experience of Anaesthesiologists in Proper Inflation of Laryngeal Mask and Endotracheal Tube Cuff

Objective and Subjective Evaluation of Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure between Different Levels of Anesthesia Experiences

Objective: After endotracheal intubation (ETI), the endotracheal tube cuff (ETTc) should be inflated at sufficient pressure to function, and high pressure should be avoided to prevent complications. In our study, the effect of professional experience on the estimation of ETTcP by palpation is investigated. Method: The study included 75 adult patients with physical status I-III of the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) scheduled for ETI. Anesthesia residents were divided into two groups of 20, each with 1 month to 1 year of experience (Group 1) and those with more than 4 years of experience (Group 2). After the ETI, one participant in both groups was asked to inflate the ETTc to an estimated 25 cm H2O by cuff palpation. Then the actual ETTcP was measured with a manometer. Results: The median ETTcP value was 42,00 cm H2O in Group 1 and 32,00 cm H2O in Group 2, (p=0.012). Although the data of both groups were significantly higher than the target value, the values obtained in Group 1 were further away from Group 2 (p<0.001, p<0.001). Conclusion: Professional experience has no effect on the correct estimation of the ETTcP. It is more convenient to measure the actual pressure to avoid undesirable effects of ETTcP outside the target.

Clinical Performance Comparison of LMA Protector™ Cuff Pilot™ and LMA Supreme™ When Used in Anesthetized, Non-paralyzed Patients

Introduction

The advancement of supraglottic airways (SGAs) has eased airway management, especially for anesthetists. There were functional improvements implemented to the newer SGA. We aim to assess the clinical performance of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Protector™ Cuff Pilot™ (Teleflex Inc., Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA) against LMA Supreme™ (Teleflex Inc., Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA), in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), successful insertion attempts, mean insertion time, ease of gastric tube insertion, laryngeal view, and incidence of sore throat among anesthetized, non-paralyzed patients undergoing general anesthesia.

Methods

In this prospective single-blinded study, 60 patients were randomized to use either LMA Protector™ Cuff Pilot™ or LMA Supreme™. Both groups received standard monitoring and induction regimes. Post-insertion, a bronchoscope was used to verify its position. A gastric tube was inserted and OLP was measured. Patients were assessed during the post-operative period for sore throats.

Results

LMA Protector™ Cuff Pilot™ was comparable to LMA Supreme™ in terms of mean OLP (30.72±8.60 vs 27.23±8.09 cmH₂O, P = 0.114), first successful attempt (P = 0.312), mean insertion time (27.72±9.45 vs 24.37±6.46 seconds, P = 0.116), and grade 1 laryngeal view (51.7% vs 36.7%, P = 0.244). At first attempt, LMA Protector™ Cuff Pilot™ had a lower success rate of gastric tube insertion than LMA Supreme™ (55.17% vs 96.67%, P <0.001). The incidence of the blood-stained device and sore throat post-operatively were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion

LMA Protector™ Cuff Pilot™ was comparable to LMA Supreme™ in terms of overall clinical performance, except for the first successful gastric tube insertion. Improvements should be made to the gastric channel for easier gastric tube insertion in the LMA Protector™ Cuff Pilot™.

Measuring endotracheal tube intracuff pressure: no room for complacency

Tracheal intubation constitutes a routine part in the care of critically ill and anaesthetised patients. Prolonged use of endotracheal with inflated cuff is one of the major multifactorial causes of complications. Both under-inflation and over-inflation of cuff are associated with complications. Despite known problems, regular measurement of cuff pressure is not routine, and it is performed on an ad hoc basis.

Subjective method for tracheal tube cuff inflation: performance of anesthesiology residents and staff anesthesiologists. Prospective observational study

Background and objectives

Poor monitoring of tracheal tube cuff pressure may result in patient complications. The objective method of using a manometer is recommended to keep safe cuff pressure values (20‒30 cm H₂O). However, as manometers are not readily available, anesthesiologists use subjective methods. We aimed to assess appropriateness of a subjective method for attaining cuff pressure and the expertise level of manometer handling among anesthesiology staff and residents in a university teaching hospital.

Methods

Prospective observational study, recruiting participants that performed tracheal intubation and the subjective method for tube cuff inflation. Patients with difficult airway, larynx and trachea anatomic abnormality and emergency procedures were not included. Up to 60 minutes after tracheal intubation, an investigator registered the cuff pressure using an aneroid manometer (AMBU®) connected to the tube pilot balloon.

Results

Forty-seven anesthesiologists were included in the study – 24 residents and 23 staff. Mean (SD) and medians (IQR) measured in cmH₂O were, respectively, 52.5 (27.1) and 50 (30‒70). We registered 83% of measurements outside the recommended pressure range, with no difference between specialists and residents. The level of expertise with the objective method was also similar in both groups. Pressure adjustments were performed in 76.6% of cases.

Conclusion

The subjective method for inflating the tracheal tube cuff resulted in a high rate of inadequate cuff pressures, with no difference in performance between anesthesiology specialists and residents.

[Subjective method for tracheal tube cuff inflation: performance of anesthesiology residents and staff anesthesiologists. Prospective observational study]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Poor monitoring of tracheal tube cuff pressure may result in patient complications. The objective method of using a manometer is recommended to keep safe cuff pressure values (20-30 cm H₂O). However, as manometers are not readily available, anesthesiologists use subjective methods. We aimed to assess appropriateness of a subjective method for attaining cuff pressure and the expertise level of manometer handling among anesthesiology staff and residents in a university teaching hospital.

METHODS

Prospective observational study, recruiting participants that performed tracheal intubation and the subjective method for tube cuff inflation. Patients with difficult airway, larynx and trachea anatomic abnormality and emergency procedures were not included. Up to 60 minutes after tracheal intubation, an investigator registered the cuff pressure using an aneroid manometer (AMBU®) connected to the tube pilot balloon.

RESULTS

Forty-seven anesthesiologists were included in the study - 24 residents and 23 staff. Mean (SD) and medians (IQR) measured in cm H₂O were, respectively, 52.5 (27.1) and 50 (30-70). We registered 83% of measurements outside the recommended pressure range, with no difference between specialists and residents. The level of expertise with the objective method was also similar in both groups. Pressure adjustments were performed in 76.6% of cases.

CONCLUSION

The subjective method for inflating the tracheal tube cuff resulted in a high rate of inadequate cuff pressures, with no difference in performance between anesthesiology specialists and residents.

Comparison of endotracheal tube cuff pressure values before and after training seminar

It is recommended that endotracheal cuff (ETTc) pressure be between 20 and 30 cm H₂O. In this present study, we intend to observe average cuff pressure values in our clinic and the change in these values after the training seminar. The cuff pressure values of 200 patients intubated following general anesthesia induction in the operating theatre were measured following intubation. One hundred patients whose values were measured before the training seminar held for all physician assistants, and 100 patients whose values were measured after the training seminar were regarded as Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. Cuff pressures of both groups were recorded, and the difference between them was shown. Moreover, cuff pressure values were explored according to the working period of the physician assistants. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of age, gender and tube diameters. Statistically significant difference was found between cuff pressure values before and after the training (p < 0.001). Average pressure measure for Group I was 54 cm H₂O, while average pressure in Group II declined to 33 cm H₂O. It was observed that as the working period and experience of physician assistants increased, cuff pressure values decreased, however no statistically significant different was found (p < 0.375). We believe that clinical experience does not have significant effects on cuff pressure and that training seminars held at intervals would prevent high cuff pressure values and potential complications.