| Literature DB >> 27478436 |
Latha Naik1, Neerja Bhardwaj1, Indu Mohini Sen1, Rakesh V Sondekoppam2.
Abstract
Introduction. The study aims to test whether flexible silicone tubes (FST) improve performance and provide similar intubation success through I-Gel as compared to ILMA. Our trial is registered in CTRI and the registration number is "CTRI/2016/06/006997." Methods. One hundred and twenty ASA status I-II patients scheduled for elective surgical procedures needing tracheal intubation were randomised to endotracheal intubation using FST through either I-Gel or ILMA. In the ILMA group (n = 60), intubation was attempted through ILMA using FST and, in the I-Gel group (n = 60), FST was inserted through I-Gel airway. Results. Successful intubation was achieved in 36.67% (95% CI 24.48%-48.86%) on first attempt through I-Gel (n = 22/60) compared to 68.33% (95% CI 56.56%-80.1%) in ILMA (n = 41/60) (p = 0.001). The overall intubation success rate was also lower with I-Gel group [58.3% (95% CI 45.82%-70.78%); n = 35] compared to ILMA [90% (95% CI 82.41%-97.59%); n = 54] (p < 0.001). The number of attempts, ease of intubation, and time to intubation were longer with I-Gel compared to ILMA. There were no differences in the other secondary outcomes. Conclusion. The first pass success rate and overall success of FST through an I-Gel airway were inferior to those of ILMA.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27478436 PMCID: PMC4958418 DOI: 10.1155/2016/7318595
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anesthesiol Res Pract ISSN: 1687-6962
Figure 1CONSORT diagram.
Patient characteristics.
| Variable | Group G ( | Group I ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 32.00 (28.52, 42.82) | 42.00 (35.68; 46.52) | 0.94 |
| Weight | 60.00 (58.88; 64.86) | 58.00 (56.52; 63.98) | 0.75 |
| Sex (M : F) | 13 : 47 | 17 : 43 | 0.39 |
| Duration of surgery | 75.00 (68.74; 115.26) | 77.50 (71.34; 95.16) | 0.86 |
| ASA status (1 : 2) | 50 : 10 | 43 : 17 | 0.12 |
| MMP (1 : 2) | 35 : 25 | 33 : 27 | 0.71 |
| TMD (cm) | 6.55 (6.55; 6.68) | 6.50 (6.53; 6.66) | 0.57 |
ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status; MMP: Mallampati score; TMD: thyromental distance.
Device insertion and intubation parameters.
| Variable | Group G ( | Group I ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of SGA attempts | 1.00 (1.19; 2.01) | 1.00 (1.22; 1.98) | 0.171 |
| Ease of SGA insertion | 1.00 (1.05; 1.75) | 1.00 (1.01; 1.39) | 0.755 |
| Time to SGA placement | 9.28 (7.99; 13.25) | 8.50 (7.54; 10.86) | 0.860 |
| Ease of intubation | 2.00 (1.41; 1.91) | 1.00 (1.17; 1.46) | 0.017 |
| Intubation success | 58.3% ( | 90% ( | 0.000 |
| Time to intubation | 16.10 (13.49; 18.84) | 7.90 (7.81; 13.87) | 0.007 |
| Number of intubation attempts | 1.00 (0.94; 1.33) | 1.00 (0.95; 1.15) | 0.027 |
| Attempts at intubation; number (percentage) | |||
| One | 22 (36.67) | 41 (68.3) | 0.001 |
| Two | 8 (13.33) | 9 (15.0) | |
| Three | 5 (8.3) | 4 (6.67) | |
| VAS 0 | 1.00 (0.36; 1.37) | 1.00 (1.04; 2.16) | 0.833 |
| Dysphagia 0 | 1.00 (0.92; 1.21) | 1.00 (1.04; 1.46) | 0.853 |
| VAS 24 | 0.00 (−0.03; 0.43) | 0.50 (0.28; 0.92) | 0.052 |
| Dysphagia 24 | 0.00 (−0.03; 0.15) | 0.00 (−0.02; 0.06) | 0.299 |
SGA: supraglottic airway device; VAS: visual analogue scale; ∗ indicates p < 0.05.
Bootstrapped mean (95% CI) for device insertion and intubation parameters.
| Variable | Group G ( | Group I ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of SGA attempts | 1.20 (1.07; 1.36) | 1.04 (1.00; 1.08) | 0.088 |
| Ease of insertion | 1.40 (1.22; 1.60) | 1.24 (1.14; 1.35) | 0.180 |
| Ease of intubation | 1.66 (1.43; 1.89) | 1.31 (1.19; 1.46) | 0.023 |
| Time to SGA placement (min) | 10.27 (9.07; 11.65) | 9.60 (8.80; 10.44) | 0.418 |
| Time to intubation (min) | 13.39 (11.41; 15.39) | 10.11 (8.76; 11.53) | 0.012 |
| Number of intubation attempts | 1.51 (1.29; 1.76) | 1.31 (1.17; 1.48) | 0.191 |
SGA: supraglottic airway device; ∗ indicates p < 0.05.
Figure 2(a) Heart rate variation between two groups. (b) Systolic blood pressure variation between two groups. p = 0.04, repeated measures ANOVA test. (c) Diastolic blood pressure variation between two groups.
Figure 3