Literature DB >> 23550791

A randomised, non-crossover study of the GuardianCPV Laryngeal Mask versus the LMA Supreme in paralysed, anaesthetised female patients.

W Tiefenthaler1, S Eschertzhuber, J Brimacombe, E Fricke, C Keller, M Kaufmann.   

Abstract

We investigated the hypothesis that the oropharyngeal leak pressure would differ between the GuardianCPV™ and the LMA Supreme™ in anaesthetised patients. We randomly assigned 120 patients to receive either the GuardianCPV or the LMA Supreme for airway management. Oropharyngeal leak pressure was measured during cuff inflation from 0 to 40 ml in 10-ml steps. In addition, intracuff pressure, fibreoptic position of the airway and drain tube, device insertion success, ventilation success, blood staining and airway morbidity were determined. Mean (SD) oropharyngeal leak pressures for clinically acceptable cuff volumes of 20-40 ml were 31 (7) cmH2O for the GuardianCPV and 27 (7) cmH2O for the LMA Supreme (p < 0.0001); mean (SD) intracuff pressures were 68 (33) cmH2O and 88 (43) cmH2O (p < 0.0001), respectively. We found no differences in device insertion success, ventilation success, fibreoptic position of the airway and drain tube, blood staining or airway morbidity. We conclude that the oropharyngeal leak pressure is better for the GuardianCPV than for the LMA Supreme in anaesthetised patients. Anaesthesia
© 2013 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23550791     DOI: 10.1111/anae.12178

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaesthesia        ISSN: 0003-2409            Impact factor:   6.955


  8 in total

1.  Guided vs. non-guided insertion of Ambu AuraGain™ in edentulous patients.

Authors:  Lukas Gasteiger; Helmuth Tauber; Corinna Velik-Salchner; Matthias Thoma; Raffaella Fantin; Vitaliy Pustilnik; Sabrina Neururer; Christian Keller; Berthold Moser
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  Effect-site concentration of propofol required for LMA-Supreme™ insertion with and without remifentanil: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Matilde Zaballos; Emilia Bastida; Salomé Agustí; Maite Portas; Consuelo Jiménez; Maite López-Gil
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 2.217

3.  Comparisons of clinical performance of Guardian laryngeal mask with laryngeal mask airway ProSeal.

Authors:  Ajay Kumar Pajiyar; Zhiting Wen; Haiyun Wang; Lin Ma; Lumin Miao; Guolin Wang
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 2.217

4.  A clinical trial evaluating the laryngeal mask airway-Supreme in obese children during general anesthesia.

Authors:  Yue Tian; Xiu-Ying Wu; Lu Li; Ling Ma; Yun-Feng Li
Journal:  Arch Med Sci       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 3.318

5.  A comparison of laryngeal mask airway-supreme and endotracheal tube use with respect to airway protection in patients undergoing septoplasty: a randomized, single-blind, controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Erol Karaaslan; Sedat Akbas; Ahmet Selim Ozkan; Cemil Colak; Zekine Begec
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 2.217

6.  Clinical Performance Comparison of LMA Protector™ Cuff Pilot™ and LMA Supreme™ When Used in Anesthetized, Non-paralyzed Patients.

Authors:  Weng Ken Chan; Chian Yong Liu
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-03-15

7.  Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults.

Authors:  C Frerk; V S Mitchell; A F McNarry; C Mendonca; R Bhagrath; A Patel; E P O'Sullivan; N M Woodall; I Ahmad
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 9.166

8.  Comparison of five 2nd-generation supraglottic airway devices for airway management performed by novice military operators.

Authors:  Tomas Henlin; Michal Sotak; Petr Kovaricek; Tomas Tyll; Lukas Balcarek; Pavel Michalek
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 3.411

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.