M Micaglio1, D Trevisanuto, N Doglioni, G Zanette, V Zanardo, C Ori. 1. Department of Pharmacology and Anesthesiology, Section of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Padua, Via C. Battisti 267, 35121 Padua, Italy. massimo.micaglio@sanita.padova.it
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA) has been demonstrated to be effective for airway management during neonatal resuscitation. However, high airway pressures, when required, cannot be achieved with this device. A neonatal prototype of the LMA-ProSeal (PLMA), which might improve the oropharyngeal leak pressure, has recently been produced. The airway sealing pressures of the cLMA and the PLMA were compared in a neonatal manikin. METHODS: A neonatal PLMA and a neonatal cLMA were positioned at random in a neonatal intubation manikin (Neonate Airway Trainer; Laerdal, Norway). A Dräeger pressure controlled ventilator (Dräeger 8000; Dräegerwerk AG, Germany) was connected to the airway tubes and increasing inspiratory pressures (from 10 to 40 cm H2O) of positive pressure ventilation applied. The peak and the mean airway pressures obtained with each device were recorded. RESULTS: The airway pressures obtained with PLMA were significantly higher than those obtained with cLMA (p < 0.01) at levels of positive pressure ventilation of 25, 30, 35 and 40 cm H2O. CONCLUSIONS: The neonatal PLMA allows higher airway pressure ventilation than the cLMA, in a neonatal intubation manikin. If confirmed clinically, this may have important implications during neonatal resuscitation when high airway pressures are required.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA) has been demonstrated to be effective for airway management during neonatal resuscitation. However, high airway pressures, when required, cannot be achieved with this device. A neonatal prototype of the LMA-ProSeal (PLMA), which might improve the oropharyngeal leak pressure, has recently been produced. The airway sealing pressures of the cLMA and the PLMA were compared in a neonatal manikin. METHODS: A neonatal PLMA and a neonatal cLMA were positioned at random in a neonatal intubation manikin (Neonate Airway Trainer; Laerdal, Norway). A Dräeger pressure controlled ventilator (Dräeger 8000; Dräegerwerk AG, Germany) was connected to the airway tubes and increasing inspiratory pressures (from 10 to 40 cm H2O) of positive pressure ventilation applied. The peak and the mean airway pressures obtained with each device were recorded. RESULTS: The airway pressures obtained with PLMA were significantly higher than those obtained with cLMA (p < 0.01) at levels of positive pressure ventilation of 25, 30, 35 and 40 cm H2O. CONCLUSIONS: The neonatal PLMA allows higher airway pressure ventilation than the cLMA, in a neonatal intubation manikin. If confirmed clinically, this may have important implications during neonatal resuscitation when high airway pressures are required.