Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

[Blind tracheal intubation with the air-Q(®) (ILA-Cookgas) mask. A comparison with the ILMA-Fastrach™ laryngeal intubation mask].
Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2014 Apr; 61(4):190-5.RE

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Supraglottic airway devices are increasingly used in anesthesia and emergency medicine as a rescue for intubation and ventilation. This study was designed to investigate the air-Q(®) supralaryngeal device and compare it with the ILMA-Fastrach™ for airway rescue and intubation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The devices were inserted in 80 patients (40 patients in each group) according to manufacturer' instructions. An inspiration pressure of 20cmH2O was applied through a ventilator for checking air leaks. If no air leak was detected, the glottis status was checked using a pediatric fiberoptic bronchoscope, followed by introducing an endotracheal tube through the supraglottic device. If the first attempt was unsuccessful, the device was removed and a second attempt was made in the same way. The primary outcome was the overall success rate for intubation. Other measurements were: successful ventilation, fiberoptic glottis view and adverse events.

RESULTS

Successful first-attempt ventilation was better with the Fastrach™ than with the air-Q(®) (90 vs. 60%, P=.0019) and overall ventilation success (first plus second attempts) was also better with ILMA-Fastrach™ (95 vs. 80%, P=.04). View of the glottis,according to Brimacombe scale, was better with air-Q(®) (84.62 vs. 37.50%, P=.0017) at the second, but not at the first, attempt. There were no differences in the percentage of successful intubations between the 2 devices. The incidence of sore throat was similar with both devices. Two patients in the air-Q(®) group suffered hoarseness and arterial desaturation, but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the ILMA-Fastrach™ and the air-Q(®) provided a similar rate of successful intubation, but ILMA-Fastrach™ was better for ventilation. The rate of adverse events was similar with both devices. Because no additional maneuver was used to facilitated intubation, there needs to be further studies to confirm these findings.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Servicio de Anestesiología y Reanimación, Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, España. Electronic address: jcgarzon62@hotmail.com.Servicio de Anestesiología y Reanimación, Complejo Asistencial de Ávila, Ávila, España.Servicio de Anestesiología y Reanimación, Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, España.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Language

spa

PubMed ID

24556513

Citation

Garzón Sánchez, J C., et al. "[Blind Tracheal Intubation With the air-Q(®) (ILA-Cookgas) Mask. a Comparison With the ILMA-Fastrach™ Laryngeal Intubation Mask]." Revista Espanola De Anestesiologia Y Reanimacion, vol. 61, no. 4, 2014, pp. 190-5.
Garzón Sánchez JC, López Correa T, Sastre Rincón JA. [Blind tracheal intubation with the air-Q(®) (ILA-Cookgas) mask. A comparison with the ILMA-Fastrach™ laryngeal intubation mask]. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2014;61(4):190-5.
Garzón Sánchez, J. C., López Correa, T., & Sastre Rincón, J. A. (2014). [Blind tracheal intubation with the air-Q(®) (ILA-Cookgas) mask. A comparison with the ILMA-Fastrach™ laryngeal intubation mask]. Revista Espanola De Anestesiologia Y Reanimacion, 61(4), 190-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redar.2013.11.002
Garzón Sánchez JC, López Correa T, Sastre Rincón JA. [Blind Tracheal Intubation With the air-Q(®) (ILA-Cookgas) Mask. a Comparison With the ILMA-Fastrach™ Laryngeal Intubation Mask]. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2014;61(4):190-5. PubMed PMID: 24556513.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - [Blind tracheal intubation with the air-Q(®) (ILA-Cookgas) mask. A comparison with the ILMA-Fastrach™ laryngeal intubation mask]. AU - Garzón Sánchez,J C, AU - López Correa,T, AU - Sastre Rincón,J A, Y1 - 2014/02/18/ PY - 2013/06/13/received PY - 2013/10/30/revised PY - 2013/11/05/accepted PY - 2014/2/22/entrez PY - 2014/2/22/pubmed PY - 2016/11/1/medline KW - Airway management KW - Intubación KW - Intubation KW - Laryngeal masks KW - Manejo de la vía aérea KW - Máscaras laríngeas SP - 190 EP - 5 JF - Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion JO - Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim VL - 61 IS - 4 N2 - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Supraglottic airway devices are increasingly used in anesthesia and emergency medicine as a rescue for intubation and ventilation. This study was designed to investigate the air-Q(®) supralaryngeal device and compare it with the ILMA-Fastrach™ for airway rescue and intubation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The devices were inserted in 80 patients (40 patients in each group) according to manufacturer' instructions. An inspiration pressure of 20cmH2O was applied through a ventilator for checking air leaks. If no air leak was detected, the glottis status was checked using a pediatric fiberoptic bronchoscope, followed by introducing an endotracheal tube through the supraglottic device. If the first attempt was unsuccessful, the device was removed and a second attempt was made in the same way. The primary outcome was the overall success rate for intubation. Other measurements were: successful ventilation, fiberoptic glottis view and adverse events. RESULTS: Successful first-attempt ventilation was better with the Fastrach™ than with the air-Q(®) (90 vs. 60%, P=.0019) and overall ventilation success (first plus second attempts) was also better with ILMA-Fastrach™ (95 vs. 80%, P=.04). View of the glottis,according to Brimacombe scale, was better with air-Q(®) (84.62 vs. 37.50%, P=.0017) at the second, but not at the first, attempt. There were no differences in the percentage of successful intubations between the 2 devices. The incidence of sore throat was similar with both devices. Two patients in the air-Q(®) group suffered hoarseness and arterial desaturation, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both the ILMA-Fastrach™ and the air-Q(®) provided a similar rate of successful intubation, but ILMA-Fastrach™ was better for ventilation. The rate of adverse events was similar with both devices. Because no additional maneuver was used to facilitated intubation, there needs to be further studies to confirm these findings. SN - 2340-3284 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/24556513/[Blind_tracheal_intubation_with_the_air_Q_®___ILA_Cookgas__mask__A_comparison_with_the_ILMA_Fastrach™_laryngeal_intubation_mask]_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0034-9356(13)00298-3 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -