[Use of i-gel airway in an intermediate step toward intubating a difficult airway for thoracic surgery]

[Blind tracheal intubation through two supraglottic devices: i-gel versus Fastrach intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA)]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The use of supraglottic devices as a means of rescue in patients difficult to intubate or ventilate has increased in the field of anaesthetics and in emergency medicine. This study is designed to evaluate the success rate of blind intubations using two supraglottic devices, the Fastrach ILMA and the i-gel mask.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 80 patients (40 per group) were included. After positioning them a leak test was performed, the glottis view was checked with a fibrobronchoscope, and an attempt was made to introduce an endotracheal tube through the device, and the procedure was repeated. Adequate ventilation was evaluated, as well as the grade of fibrobronchoscope view, the success of the intubation, and the complications observed after their use.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the incidence of adequate ventilation with either device. The glottis view (Brimacombe scale) was better with i-gel (77.78% versus 68.42%) at the second attempt, but not on the first. A higher percentage of intubations were achieved with the Fastrach ILMA (70% versus 40%; P=.013). The incidence of throat pain was similar with both devices, but post-operative dysphonia was more frequent with i-gel (20% versus 0; P=.0053).

CONCLUSIONS

Both devices were equally effective in achieving adequate ventilation; however, the Fastrach ILMA enabled a higher number of intubations to be made than i-gel and with a lower incidence of post-operative dysphonia.

[Blind tracheal intubation with the air-Q(®) (ILA-Cookgas) mask. A comparison with the ILMA-Fastrach™ laryngeal intubation mask]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Supraglottic airway devices are increasingly used in anesthesia and emergency medicine as a rescue for intubation and ventilation. This study was designed to investigate the air-Q(®) supralaryngeal device and compare it with the ILMA-Fastrach™ for airway rescue and intubation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The devices were inserted in 80 patients (40 patients in each group) according to manufacturer' instructions. An inspiration pressure of 20cmH2O was applied through a ventilator for checking air leaks. If no air leak was detected, the glottis status was checked using a pediatric fiberoptic bronchoscope, followed by introducing an endotracheal tube through the supraglottic device. If the first attempt was unsuccessful, the device was removed and a second attempt was made in the same way. The primary outcome was the overall success rate for intubation. Other measurements were: successful ventilation, fiberoptic glottis view and adverse events.

RESULTS

Successful first-attempt ventilation was better with the Fastrach™ than with the air-Q(®) (90 vs. 60%, P=.0019) and overall ventilation success (first plus second attempts) was also better with ILMA-Fastrach™ (95 vs. 80%, P=.04). View of the glottis,according to Brimacombe scale, was better with air-Q(®) (84.62 vs. 37.50%, P=.0017) at the second, but not at the first, attempt. There were no differences in the percentage of successful intubations between the 2 devices. The incidence of sore throat was similar with both devices. Two patients in the air-Q(®) group suffered hoarseness and arterial desaturation, but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the ILMA-Fastrach™ and the air-Q(®) provided a similar rate of successful intubation, but ILMA-Fastrach™ was better for ventilation. The rate of adverse events was similar with both devices. Because no additional maneuver was used to facilitated intubation, there needs to be further studies to confirm these findings.