Consultant Anaesthetist St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
J Clin Monit Comput. 2023 Apr;37(2):517-524. doi: 10.1007/s10877-022-00910-5. Epub 2022 Sep 5.
To address the problem of lack of clinical evidence for airway devices introduced to the market, the Difficult Airway Society (UK) developed an approach (termed ADEPT; Airway Device Evaluation Project Team) to standardise the model for device evaluation. Under this framework we assessed the LMA Protector, a second generation laryngeal mask airway. A total of 111 sequential adult patients were recruited and the LMA Protector inserted after induction of general anaesthesia. Effective insertion was confirmed by resistance to further distal movement, manual ventilation, and listening for gas leakage at the mouth. The breathing circuit was connected to the airway channel and airway patency confirmed with manual test ventilation at 20 cm H0 (water) pressure for 3 s. Data was collected in relation to the time for placement, intraoperative performance and postoperative performance of the airway device. Additionally, investigators rated the ease of insertion and adequacy of lung ventilation on a 5-point scale. The median (interquartile range [range]) time taken to insertion of the device was 31 (26-40[14-780]) s with the ability to ventilate after device insertion 100 (95% CI 96.7- 100)%. Secondary endpoints included one or more manoeuvres 60.3 (95% CI 50.6-69.5)% cases requiring to assist insertion; a median ease of insertion score of 4 (2-5[3-5]), and a median adequacy of ventilation score of 5 (5-5[4-5]). However, the first time insertion rate failure was 9.9% (95% CI 5.1-17.0%). There were no episodes of patient harm recorded, particularly desaturation. The LMA Protector appears suitable for clinical use, but an accompanying article discusses our reflections on the ADEPT approach to studying airway devices from a strategic perspective.
为了解决市场上引入的气道设备缺乏临床证据的问题,英国困难气道学会(Difficult Airway Society,DAS)开发了一种方法(称为 ADEPT;气道设备评估项目团队),以标准化设备评估模型。在这个框架下,我们评估了第二代喉罩气道 LMA Protector。总共招募了 111 例连续的成年患者,并在全身麻醉诱导后插入 LMA Protector。通过进一步的远端移动阻力、手动通气和听诊口腔漏气来确认有效插入。将呼吸回路连接到气道通道,并在 20cmH0(水)压力下进行手动测试通气 3s 以确认气道通畅。收集与设备放置时间、手术期间性能和术后性能相关的数据。此外,研究人员根据插入的难易程度和肺通气的充分程度对 5 分制进行评分。插入设备的中位(四分位数范围[范围])时间为 31(26-40[14-780])s,插入设备后通气能力为 100(95%CI96.7-100)%。次要终点包括需要进行一次或多次辅助插入的操作 60.3(95%CI50.6-69.5)%病例;插入容易程度评分中位数为 4(2-5[3-5]),通气充分程度评分中位数为 5(5-5[4-5])。然而,首次插入失败率为 9.9%(95%CI5.1-17.0%)。没有记录到患者伤害的情况,特别是没有出现缺氧。LMA Protector 似乎适合临床使用,但随后的一篇文章从战略角度讨论了我们对 ADEPT 方法研究气道设备的反思。