Literature DB >> 23521105

A randomized comparison of the laryngeal mask airway supreme™ and laryngeal mask airway unique™ in infants and children: does cuff pressure influence leak pressure?

Narasimhan Jagannathan1, Lisa Sohn, Katherine Sommers, Dawn Belvis, Ravi D Shah, Amod Sawardekar, Jami Eidem, Justin Dagraca, Isabella Mukherji.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The cuff pressure for optimal airway sealing with first-generation laryngeal mask airway has been shown to be 40 cm H(2)O in children. Currently, there are no data regarding the ideal intracuff pressure for the laryngeal mask airway Supreme (Supreme) in children.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical performance of the laryngeal mask airway supreme with the laryngeal mask airway unique in infants and children.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred eighty children were assigned to receive either a Supreme or a laryngeal mask airway-U. We hypothesized higher airway leak pressure with the Supreme at both 40 cm H(2)O and 60 cm H(2)O, when compared with the laryngeal mask airway-U. Ease and time of insertion, insertion attempts, fiber optic examination, quality of airway, efficacy of mechanical ventilation, success of gastric tube placement (Supreme), incidence of gastric insufflation, and complications were also assessed.
RESULTS: Airway leak pressure at an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H(2)O for the Supreme was 17.4 (5.2) vs laryngeal mask airway-U at 18.4 (6.6) cm H(2)O and did not differ when compared to an intracuff pressure of 40 cm H(2)O for both devices; Supreme at 17.2 (5) vs laryngeal mask airway-U at 17.7 (6) cm H(2)O. The laryngeal mask airway-U was associated with higher first-attempt success rates. The Supreme was associated with less gastric insufflation than the laryngeal mask airway-U.
CONCLUSIONS: Intracuff pressures of 40 cm H(2)O may be sufficient for the Supreme in children, and there may be no added benefit of an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H(2)O, as leak pressures were similar. The Supreme may be preferred over the laryngeal mask airway-U for its lower rates of gastric insufflation and provision for gastric access when mechanical ventilation is utilized.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  airway; clinical trial; devices

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23521105     DOI: 10.1111/pan.12145

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth        ISSN: 1155-5645            Impact factor:   2.556


  4 in total

1.  Comparison of clinical performance of size 1.5 Supreme™ LMA and Proseal™ LMA among Asian children: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Sook Hui Chaw; Ina I Shariffuddin; Li Lian Foo; Pui Kuan Lee; Ramona Maya Paran; Peak Chee Cheang; Lucy Chan
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 2.  Small is the new big: An overview of newer supraglottic airways for children.

Authors:  Rakhee Goyal
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015 Oct-Dec

3.  A comparison of i-gel™ and Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme™ during general anesthesia in infants.

Authors:  Yoon Chan Lee; Kyoung Seop Yoon; Sang Yoong Park; So Ron Choi; Chan Jong Chung
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2017-08-14

4.  Evaluation of Different Positive End-Expiratory Pressures Using Supreme™ Airway Laryngeal Mask during Minor Surgical Procedures in Children.

Authors:  Mascha O Fiedler; Elisabeth Schätzle; Marius Contzen; Christian Gernoth; Christel Weiß; Thomas Walter; Tim Viergutz; Armin Kalenka
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 2.430

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.