Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

A randomized trial comparing the Ambu ® Aura-i ™ with the air-Q ™ intubating laryngeal airway as conduits for tracheal intubation in children.
Paediatr Anaesth. 2012 Dec; 22(12):1197-204.PA

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical performance of the Ambu Aura-i (Aura-i) in children.

AIM

To compare the Aura-i with the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q) for the purposes of fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation.

BACKGROUND

The Aura-i is a new supraglottic airway designed for tracheal intubation.

MATERIALS/METHODS

One hundred twenty children, ages 1 month to 6 years, were randomized to receive either the Aura-i or air-Q, and divided into three equal subgroups (Group 1, 2, 3) based on weight. The time for successful tracheal intubation was primarily assessed. The ease, time, and number of attempts for successful device insertion, leak pressures, fiberoptic grade of laryngeal view, number of attempts time for removal of the device after tracheal intubation, and complications were secondarily assessed.

RESULTS

Device placement, tracheal intubation, and removal after tracheal intubation were successful in all patients. There were no differences in the time to successful tracheal intubation through the Aura-i (32.9 ± 13.3 s), and the air-Q (33.9 ± 13 s; P = 0.68), or fiberoptic grade of view between devices. There was not a statistically significant correlation between the time to intubation and the fiberoptic grade of laryngeal view in any of the groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall leak pressures, air-Q (18.3 ± 6.1 cm H(2) O) vs Aura-i (16 ± 5.1 cm H(2) O; P = 0.05). In Group 1 (5-10 kg), leak pressures were higher with the air-Q (23.4 ± 7.2 cm H(2) O) than the Aura-i (16.1 ± 5.2 cm H(2) O; P = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the time for removal between the two devices (P = 0.11). However, with the size 1.5 Aura-i, the pilot balloon of the tracheal tube was removed in order to facilitate the removal of the device after tracheal intubation.

CONCLUSIONS

Both devices served as effective conduits for fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation. The limitation of the narrower proximal airway tube of the size 1.5 Aura-i should be considered if cuffed tracheal tubes are to be utilized.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Pediatric Anesthesia, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA. simjag2000@yahoo.comNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Language

eng

PubMed ID

22971118

Citation

Jagannathan, Narasimhan, et al. "A Randomized Trial Comparing the Ambu ® Aura-i ™ With the air-Q ™ Intubating Laryngeal Airway as Conduits for Tracheal Intubation in Children." Paediatric Anaesthesia, vol. 22, no. 12, 2012, pp. 1197-204.
Jagannathan N, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, et al. A randomized trial comparing the Ambu ® Aura-i ™ with the air-Q ™ intubating laryngeal airway as conduits for tracheal intubation in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012;22(12):1197-204.
Jagannathan, N., Sohn, L. E., Sawardekar, A., Gordon, J., Shah, R. D., Mukherji, I. I., Roth, A. G., & Suresh, S. (2012). A randomized trial comparing the Ambu ® Aura-i ™ with the air-Q ™ intubating laryngeal airway as conduits for tracheal intubation in children. Paediatric Anaesthesia, 22(12), 1197-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.12024
Jagannathan N, et al. A Randomized Trial Comparing the Ambu ® Aura-i ™ With the air-Q ™ Intubating Laryngeal Airway as Conduits for Tracheal Intubation in Children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012;22(12):1197-204. PubMed PMID: 22971118.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - A randomized trial comparing the Ambu ® Aura-i ™ with the air-Q ™ intubating laryngeal airway as conduits for tracheal intubation in children. AU - Jagannathan,Narasimhan, AU - Sohn,Lisa E, AU - Sawardekar,Amod, AU - Gordon,Jason, AU - Shah,Ravi D, AU - Mukherji,Isabella I, AU - Roth,Andrew G, AU - Suresh,Santhanam, Y1 - 2012/09/13/ PY - 2012/08/07/accepted PY - 2012/9/14/entrez PY - 2012/9/14/pubmed PY - 2013/5/7/medline SP - 1197 EP - 204 JF - Paediatric anaesthesia JO - Paediatr Anaesth VL - 22 IS - 12 N2 - OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical performance of the Ambu Aura-i (Aura-i) in children. AIM: To compare the Aura-i with the air-Q intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q) for the purposes of fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation. BACKGROUND: The Aura-i is a new supraglottic airway designed for tracheal intubation. MATERIALS/METHODS: One hundred twenty children, ages 1 month to 6 years, were randomized to receive either the Aura-i or air-Q, and divided into three equal subgroups (Group 1, 2, 3) based on weight. The time for successful tracheal intubation was primarily assessed. The ease, time, and number of attempts for successful device insertion, leak pressures, fiberoptic grade of laryngeal view, number of attempts time for removal of the device after tracheal intubation, and complications were secondarily assessed. RESULTS: Device placement, tracheal intubation, and removal after tracheal intubation were successful in all patients. There were no differences in the time to successful tracheal intubation through the Aura-i (32.9 ± 13.3 s), and the air-Q (33.9 ± 13 s; P = 0.68), or fiberoptic grade of view between devices. There was not a statistically significant correlation between the time to intubation and the fiberoptic grade of laryngeal view in any of the groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall leak pressures, air-Q (18.3 ± 6.1 cm H(2) O) vs Aura-i (16 ± 5.1 cm H(2) O; P = 0.05). In Group 1 (5-10 kg), leak pressures were higher with the air-Q (23.4 ± 7.2 cm H(2) O) than the Aura-i (16.1 ± 5.2 cm H(2) O; P = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the time for removal between the two devices (P = 0.11). However, with the size 1.5 Aura-i, the pilot balloon of the tracheal tube was removed in order to facilitate the removal of the device after tracheal intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Both devices served as effective conduits for fiberoptic-guided tracheal intubation. The limitation of the narrower proximal airway tube of the size 1.5 Aura-i should be considered if cuffed tracheal tubes are to be utilized. SN - 1460-9592 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/22971118/A_randomized_trial_comparing_the_Ambu_®_Aura_i_™_with_the_air_Q_™_intubating_laryngeal_airway_as_conduits_for_tracheal_intubation_in_children_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.12024 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -