Marc Kriege1, Tim Piepho2, Susanne Zanker1, Christian Alflen1, Florian Heid1, Rüdiger R Noppens1. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany - piepho@uni-mainz.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Second-generation laryngeal masks with gastric access are increasingly used in daily practice and expand the indications for laryngeal masks in the OR. Only limited data exist comparing different types of laryngeal masks. We investigated the second-generation laryngeal masks LMA Supreme™ and Ambu® AuraGain™ in a clinical setting. We hypothesized that the two devices would be comparable in terms of success rate and airway complications. METHODS: After approval from the local ethics committee, data were collected in a prospective trial. Endpoints were success rate, time to insertion and airway morbidity. Anesthesiologists used either the Supreme (Teleflex Medical GmbH) or Gain (Ambu GmbH) laryngeal mask. Patients <18 years and those with a possible risk of regurgitation were excluded. RESULTS: Data from 351 adult patients were documented (Supreme N.=177; Gain N.=174). Success rate for first attempt was 80% (Supreme) and 72% (Gain; P=0.08). Overall success rate was 89% and 92%, respectively (P=0.38). Providers with minimal experience were more successful at first attempt using Supreme (95%), compared to Gain (67%; P=0.01). The median insertion time was shorter in Supreme at 18 s [interquartile range (IQR), 14-25 s] compared to 30 s for Gain [18-41s] (P<0.0001). A higher incidence of airway complications was observed after device removal for Gain (P=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Supreme was superior to Gain in terms of insertion time and airway morbidity. Novices were more successful at first attempt using Supreme. These differences between supraglottic airway devices might be due to the different shapes and materials of the masks.
BACKGROUND: Second-generation laryngeal masks with gastric access are increasingly used in daily practice and expand the indications for laryngeal masks in the OR. Only limited data exist comparing different types of laryngeal masks. We investigated the second-generation laryngeal masks LMA Supreme™ and Ambu® AuraGain™ in a clinical setting. We hypothesized that the two devices would be comparable in terms of success rate and airway complications. METHODS: After approval from the local ethics committee, data were collected in a prospective trial. Endpoints were success rate, time to insertion and airway morbidity. Anesthesiologists used either the Supreme (Teleflex Medical GmbH) or Gain (Ambu GmbH) laryngeal mask. Patients <18 years and those with a possible risk of regurgitation were excluded. RESULTS: Data from 351 adult patients were documented (Supreme N.=177; Gain N.=174). Success rate for first attempt was 80% (Supreme) and 72% (Gain; P=0.08). Overall success rate was 89% and 92%, respectively (P=0.38). Providers with minimal experience were more successful at first attempt using Supreme (95%), compared to Gain (67%; P=0.01). The median insertion time was shorter in Supreme at 18 s [interquartile range (IQR), 14-25 s] compared to 30 s for Gain [18-41s] (P<0.0001). A higher incidence of airway complications was observed after device removal for Gain (P=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Supreme was superior to Gain in terms of insertion time and airway morbidity. Novices were more successful at first attempt using Supreme. These differences between supraglottic airway devices might be due to the different shapes and materials of the masks.