Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea.
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Minerva Anestesiol. 2020 Jul;86(7):727-735. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.20.14237-8. Epub 2020 Apr 6.
The use of second generation supraglottic airway devices is recommended for airway rescue in failed tracheal intubation. This study was performed to compare the clinical performance of the i-gel™ with that of the AuraGain™ in patients with simulated cervical immobilization.
We conducted a prospective, randomized controlled trial in 104 patients undergoing general anesthesia from June to September 2018 at the Seoul National University Hospital. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either the i-gel™ or the AuraGain™ device. A difficult airway was simulated using a cervical collar limiting the mouth opening and neck movement. The primary outcome was the initial oropharyngeal leak pressure.
The rate of successful insertion at the first attempt was 92.3% for the i-gel™ and 86% for the AuraGain™. There were no significant differences in the initial and 5-min oropharyngeal leak pressures between the i-gel™ and the AuraGain™ (21±4 vs. 22±5 cmH2O, P=0.229; and 22±5 vs. 23±5 cmH2O, P=0.308, respectively). The time to successful device insertion was shorter (20 [16-23] vs. 25 [20-41] s, P<0.001) and device insertion was easier (P<0.001) in the i-gel™ group than in the AuraGain™ group. The blood staining of the device was more frequently observed in the AuraGain™ (3 [5.8%] vs. 12 [23.5%] patients, P=0.003).
The i-gel™ and the AuraGain™ showed comparable oropharyngeal leak pressures and success rates in the first attempt in patients with simulated cervical immobilization. However, the i-gel™ was easier to insert and required less time for insertion than the AuraGain™.
在气管插管失败时,建议使用第二代声门上气道装置进行气道抢救。本研究旨在比较模拟颈椎固定患者中 i-gel™与 AuraGain™的临床性能。
我们在 2018 年 6 月至 9 月期间在首尔国立大学医院进行了一项前瞻性、随机对照试验,纳入 104 名接受全身麻醉的患者。患者被随机分配接受 i-gel™或 AuraGain™装置。使用限制开口和颈部运动的颈圈模拟困难气道。主要结局是初始或咽部泄漏压力。
i-gel™组初次尝试插入的成功率为 92.3%,AuraGain™组为 86%。i-gel™和 AuraGain™之间的初始和 5 分钟咽部泄漏压力没有显著差异(21±4 对 22±5 cmH2O,P=0.229;22±5 对 23±5 cmH2O,P=0.308)。i-gel™组成功插入装置的时间更短(20[16-23]对 25[20-41]s,P<0.001),且插入更容易(P<0.001)。AuraGain™组的装置血污更常见(3[5.8%]对 12[23.5%]患者,P=0.003)。
在模拟颈椎固定的患者中,i-gel™和 AuraGain™在初次尝试时均显示出相似的咽部泄漏压力和成功率。然而,i-gel™的插入更容易,插入所需时间更短。