Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Blind intubation of anaesthetised children with supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q cannot be recommended: A randomised controlled trial.
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015 Sep; 32(9):631-9.EJ

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Paediatric supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q were designed as conduits for tracheal intubation. Although fibreoptic-guided intubation has proved successful, blind intubation as a rescue technique has never been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of blind intubation through AmbuAura-i and Air-Q. On the basis of fibreoptic view data, we hypothesised that the success rate with the AmbuAura-i would be higher than with the Air-Q.

DESIGN

A randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

University Childrens' Hospital; September 2012 to July 2014.

PATIENTS

Eighty children, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I to III, weight 5 to 50 kg.

INTERVENTIONS

Tracheal intubation was performed through the randomised device with the tip of a fibrescope placed inside and proximal to the tip of the tracheal tube. This permitted sight of tube advancement, but without fibreoptic guidance (visualised blind intubation).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was successfully visualised blind intubation; secondary outcomes included supraglottic airway device success, insertion times, airway leak pressure, fibreoptic view and adverse events.

RESULTS

Personal data did not differ between groups. In contrast to our hypothesis, blind intubation was possible in 15% with the Air-Q and in 3% with the AmbuAura-i [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 6 to 31 vs. 0 to 13%; P = 0.057]. First attempt supraglottic airway device insertion success rates were 95% (Air-Q) and 100% (AmbuAura-i; 95% CI 83 to 99 vs. 91 to 100; P = 0.49). Median leak pressures were 18 cmH2O (Air-Q) and 17 cmH2O [AmbuAura-i; interquartile range (IQR) 14 to 18 vs. 14 to 19 cmH2O; P = 0.66]. Air-Q insertion was slower (27 vs. 19 s, P < 0.001). There was no difference in fibreoptic view, or adverse events (P > 0.05). In one child (Air-Q size 1.5, tube size 3.5), the tube dislocated during device removal.

CONCLUSION

Ventilation with both devices is reliable, but success of blind intubation is unacceptably low and cannot be recommended for elective or rescue purposes. If intubation through a paediatric supraglottic airway device is desired, we suggest that fibreoptic guidance is used.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01692522.

Authors+Show Affiliations

From the Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Bern University Hospital - Inselspital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

26061874

Citation

Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren, et al. "Blind Intubation of Anaesthetised Children With Supraglottic Airway Devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q Cannot Be Recommended: a Randomised Controlled Trial." European Journal of Anaesthesiology, vol. 32, no. 9, 2015, pp. 631-9.
Kleine-Brueggeney M, Nicolet A, Nabecker S, et al. Blind intubation of anaesthetised children with supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q cannot be recommended: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015;32(9):631-9.
Kleine-Brueggeney, M., Nicolet, A., Nabecker, S., Seiler, S., Stucki, F., Greif, R., & Theiler, L. (2015). Blind intubation of anaesthetised children with supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q cannot be recommended: A randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Anaesthesiology, 32(9), 631-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000000261
Kleine-Brueggeney M, et al. Blind Intubation of Anaesthetised Children With Supraglottic Airway Devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q Cannot Be Recommended: a Randomised Controlled Trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015;32(9):631-9. PubMed PMID: 26061874.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Blind intubation of anaesthetised children with supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q cannot be recommended: A randomised controlled trial. AU - Kleine-Brueggeney,Maren, AU - Nicolet,Anna, AU - Nabecker,Sabine, AU - Seiler,Stefan, AU - Stucki,Franziska, AU - Greif,Robert, AU - Theiler,Lorenz, PY - 2015/6/11/entrez PY - 2015/6/11/pubmed PY - 2016/5/14/medline SP - 631 EP - 9 JF - European journal of anaesthesiology JO - Eur J Anaesthesiol VL - 32 IS - 9 N2 - BACKGROUND: Paediatric supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q were designed as conduits for tracheal intubation. Although fibreoptic-guided intubation has proved successful, blind intubation as a rescue technique has never been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of blind intubation through AmbuAura-i and Air-Q. On the basis of fibreoptic view data, we hypothesised that the success rate with the AmbuAura-i would be higher than with the Air-Q. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial. SETTING: University Childrens' Hospital; September 2012 to July 2014. PATIENTS: Eighty children, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I to III, weight 5 to 50 kg. INTERVENTIONS: Tracheal intubation was performed through the randomised device with the tip of a fibrescope placed inside and proximal to the tip of the tracheal tube. This permitted sight of tube advancement, but without fibreoptic guidance (visualised blind intubation). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was successfully visualised blind intubation; secondary outcomes included supraglottic airway device success, insertion times, airway leak pressure, fibreoptic view and adverse events. RESULTS: Personal data did not differ between groups. In contrast to our hypothesis, blind intubation was possible in 15% with the Air-Q and in 3% with the AmbuAura-i [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 6 to 31 vs. 0 to 13%; P = 0.057]. First attempt supraglottic airway device insertion success rates were 95% (Air-Q) and 100% (AmbuAura-i; 95% CI 83 to 99 vs. 91 to 100; P = 0.49). Median leak pressures were 18 cmH2O (Air-Q) and 17 cmH2O [AmbuAura-i; interquartile range (IQR) 14 to 18 vs. 14 to 19 cmH2O; P = 0.66]. Air-Q insertion was slower (27 vs. 19 s, P < 0.001). There was no difference in fibreoptic view, or adverse events (P > 0.05). In one child (Air-Q size 1.5, tube size 3.5), the tube dislocated during device removal. CONCLUSION: Ventilation with both devices is reliable, but success of blind intubation is unacceptably low and cannot be recommended for elective or rescue purposes. If intubation through a paediatric supraglottic airway device is desired, we suggest that fibreoptic guidance is used. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01692522. SN - 1365-2346 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/26061874/Blind_intubation_of_anaesthetised_children_with_supraglottic_airway_devices_AmbuAura_i_and_Air_Q_cannot_be_recommended:_A_randomised_controlled_trial_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000000261 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -