Cargando…

A comparison of blind intubation with the intubating laryngeal mask FASTRACH™ and the intubating laryngeal mask Ambu Aura-i™ a prospective randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND: The intubating laryngeal mask Fastrach™ is considered a gold standard for blind intubation as well as for fibreoptic guided intubation via a laryngeal mask. Recently, a single use version of the mask has been introduced. We compared the Fastrach single use with the new, low-priced single...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schiewe, R., Stoeck, M., Gruenewald, M., Hoecker, J., Bein, B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6441151/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30927922
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0718-6
_version_ 1783407503168503808
author Schiewe, R.
Stoeck, M.
Gruenewald, M.
Hoecker, J.
Bein, B.
author_facet Schiewe, R.
Stoeck, M.
Gruenewald, M.
Hoecker, J.
Bein, B.
author_sort Schiewe, R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The intubating laryngeal mask Fastrach™ is considered a gold standard for blind intubation as well as for fibreoptic guided intubation via a laryngeal mask. Recently, a single use version of the mask has been introduced. We compared the Fastrach single use with the new, low-priced single use intubating laryngeal mask Ambu Aura-i™. We hypothesised that the LMA Ambu Aura-i and the LMA Fastrach are comparable with respect to success rates for mask placement and blind tracheal intubation through the LMA device. METHODS: A prospective, randomised clinical trial. University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, from April 2011 to April 2012. Eighty patients undergoing general anaesthesia with planned tracheal intubation were randomised and enrolled in the study. Blind intubation was performed with either laryngeal mask using two different tracheal tubes (Rüsch Super Safety Silk™ and LMA ETT™). A crossover-design was performed after an unsuccessful procedure. Primary outcome measure was the overall success rate of blind intubation. Secondary outcome measures were the time to the first adequate ventilation, a subjective handling score, and a fibreoptic control of placement, as well as the success rate of mask placement, time for mask removal after successful intubation, differences in airway leak pressure, and the incidence of postoperative sore throat and hoarseness. RESULTS: The success rate of tracheal intubation with the Fastrach for the first and second attempt was significantly better compared with the Ambu Aura-i. Tracheal intubation was also significantly faster (14.1 s. ±4.4 versus 21.3 s. ±9.0; p < 0.01), and the time interval for mask removal after successful intubation was significantly shorter using the Fastrach device (24.0 s. ±8.2 versus 29.4 s. ±7.5; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups regarding the incidence of postoperative sore throat and hoarseness. CONCLUSION: Both laryngeal mask devices are suitable for ventilation and oxygenation. Blind intubation remains the domain of the LMA Fastrach, the Ambu Aura-i is not suitable for blind intubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identification Number NCT03109678, retrospectively registered on April 12, 2017.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6441151
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64411512019-04-11 A comparison of blind intubation with the intubating laryngeal mask FASTRACH™ and the intubating laryngeal mask Ambu Aura-i™ a prospective randomised clinical trial Schiewe, R. Stoeck, M. Gruenewald, M. Hoecker, J. Bein, B. BMC Anesthesiol Research Article BACKGROUND: The intubating laryngeal mask Fastrach™ is considered a gold standard for blind intubation as well as for fibreoptic guided intubation via a laryngeal mask. Recently, a single use version of the mask has been introduced. We compared the Fastrach single use with the new, low-priced single use intubating laryngeal mask Ambu Aura-i™. We hypothesised that the LMA Ambu Aura-i and the LMA Fastrach are comparable with respect to success rates for mask placement and blind tracheal intubation through the LMA device. METHODS: A prospective, randomised clinical trial. University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, from April 2011 to April 2012. Eighty patients undergoing general anaesthesia with planned tracheal intubation were randomised and enrolled in the study. Blind intubation was performed with either laryngeal mask using two different tracheal tubes (Rüsch Super Safety Silk™ and LMA ETT™). A crossover-design was performed after an unsuccessful procedure. Primary outcome measure was the overall success rate of blind intubation. Secondary outcome measures were the time to the first adequate ventilation, a subjective handling score, and a fibreoptic control of placement, as well as the success rate of mask placement, time for mask removal after successful intubation, differences in airway leak pressure, and the incidence of postoperative sore throat and hoarseness. RESULTS: The success rate of tracheal intubation with the Fastrach for the first and second attempt was significantly better compared with the Ambu Aura-i. Tracheal intubation was also significantly faster (14.1 s. ±4.4 versus 21.3 s. ±9.0; p < 0.01), and the time interval for mask removal after successful intubation was significantly shorter using the Fastrach device (24.0 s. ±8.2 versus 29.4 s. ±7.5; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups regarding the incidence of postoperative sore throat and hoarseness. CONCLUSION: Both laryngeal mask devices are suitable for ventilation and oxygenation. Blind intubation remains the domain of the LMA Fastrach, the Ambu Aura-i is not suitable for blind intubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identification Number NCT03109678, retrospectively registered on April 12, 2017. BioMed Central 2019-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6441151/ /pubmed/30927922 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0718-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Schiewe, R.
Stoeck, M.
Gruenewald, M.
Hoecker, J.
Bein, B.
A comparison of blind intubation with the intubating laryngeal mask FASTRACH™ and the intubating laryngeal mask Ambu Aura-i™ a prospective randomised clinical trial
title A comparison of blind intubation with the intubating laryngeal mask FASTRACH™ and the intubating laryngeal mask Ambu Aura-i™ a prospective randomised clinical trial
title_full A comparison of blind intubation with the intubating laryngeal mask FASTRACH™ and the intubating laryngeal mask Ambu Aura-i™ a prospective randomised clinical trial
title_fullStr A comparison of blind intubation with the intubating laryngeal mask FASTRACH™ and the intubating laryngeal mask Ambu Aura-i™ a prospective randomised clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of blind intubation with the intubating laryngeal mask FASTRACH™ and the intubating laryngeal mask Ambu Aura-i™ a prospective randomised clinical trial
title_short A comparison of blind intubation with the intubating laryngeal mask FASTRACH™ and the intubating laryngeal mask Ambu Aura-i™ a prospective randomised clinical trial
title_sort comparison of blind intubation with the intubating laryngeal mask fastrach™ and the intubating laryngeal mask ambu aura-i™ a prospective randomised clinical trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6441151/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30927922
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0718-6
work_keys_str_mv AT schiewer acomparisonofblindintubationwiththeintubatinglaryngealmaskfastrachandtheintubatinglaryngealmaskambuauraiaprospectiverandomisedclinicaltrial
AT stoeckm acomparisonofblindintubationwiththeintubatinglaryngealmaskfastrachandtheintubatinglaryngealmaskambuauraiaprospectiverandomisedclinicaltrial
AT gruenewaldm acomparisonofblindintubationwiththeintubatinglaryngealmaskfastrachandtheintubatinglaryngealmaskambuauraiaprospectiverandomisedclinicaltrial
AT hoeckerj acomparisonofblindintubationwiththeintubatinglaryngealmaskfastrachandtheintubatinglaryngealmaskambuauraiaprospectiverandomisedclinicaltrial
AT beinb acomparisonofblindintubationwiththeintubatinglaryngealmaskfastrachandtheintubatinglaryngealmaskambuauraiaprospectiverandomisedclinicaltrial
AT schiewer comparisonofblindintubationwiththeintubatinglaryngealmaskfastrachandtheintubatinglaryngealmaskambuauraiaprospectiverandomisedclinicaltrial
AT stoeckm comparisonofblindintubationwiththeintubatinglaryngealmaskfastrachandtheintubatinglaryngealmaskambuauraiaprospectiverandomisedclinicaltrial
AT gruenewaldm comparisonofblindintubationwiththeintubatinglaryngealmaskfastrachandtheintubatinglaryngealmaskambuauraiaprospectiverandomisedclinicaltrial
AT hoeckerj comparisonofblindintubationwiththeintubatinglaryngealmaskfastrachandtheintubatinglaryngealmaskambuauraiaprospectiverandomisedclinicaltrial
AT beinb comparisonofblindintubationwiththeintubatinglaryngealmaskfastrachandtheintubatinglaryngealmaskambuauraiaprospectiverandomisedclinicaltrial