Dataset Information

Clinical application of limiting laryngeal mask airway cuff pressures utilizing inflating syringe intrinsic recoil.

ABSTRACT: Background:Overinflation of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) cuff may cause many of the complications associated with the use of the LMA. There is no clinically acceptable (cost effective and practical) method to ensure cuff pressure is maintained below the manufacturer's recommended maximum value of 60 cm H2O (44 mmHg). We studied the use of the intrinsic recoil of the LMA inflating syringe as an effective and practical way to limit cuff pressures at or below the manufacturer's recommended values. Methods:We enrolled 332 patients into three separate groups: LMAs inserted and inflated per standard practice at the institution with only manual palpation of the pilot balloon; LMA cuff pressures measured by a pressure transducer and reduced to < 60 cm H2O (44 mmHg); and LMA intra-cuff pressure managed by the intrinsic recoil of the syringe. Results:There were no statistically significant differences between the pressure transducer group and the syringe recoil group for initial cuff pressure or cuff pressure 1 hour after surgery. Both the syringe recoil group and pressure transducer group were less likely than the standard practice group to have sore throat and dysphagia 1 hour after surgery. These differences remained 24 hours after surgery. Conclusions:Syringe recoil provides an efficient and reproducible method similar to manometry in preventing overinflation of the LMA cuff and decreasing the incidence of postoperative laryngopharyngeal complications.

SUBMITTER: Corda DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5931177 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical application of limiting laryngeal mask airway cuff pressures utilizing inflating syringe intrinsic recoil.

Corda David M DM Robards Christopher B CB Rice Mark J MJ Morey Timothy E TE Gravenstein Nikolaus N Vasilopoulos Terrie T Brull Sorin J SJ

Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care 20180401 1

<h4>Background</h4>Overinflation of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) cuff may cause many of the complications associated with the use of the LMA. There is no clinically acceptable (cost effective and practical) method to ensure cuff pressure is maintained below the manufacturer's recommended maximum value of 60 cm H<sub>2</sub>O (44 mmHg). We studied the use of the intrinsic recoil of the LMA inflating syringe as an effective and practical way to limit cuff pressures at or below the manufacturer' ...[more]

PMID: 29756057

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsThe Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Protector™ is one of the latest introduced supraglottic airway devices. It provides access and functional separation of the respiratory and digestive tracts. Compared to the LMA Supreme™, it has two digestive ports, one to provide suction in the pharyngeal region and one for gastric tube insertion. High oropharyngeal leak pressure is a marker for safe ventilation when using LMA devices. We hypothesized that oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA Protector™ is 5 cm H2O higher than the oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA Supreme™ at various cuff volumes. Secondary outcome measures were ease of insertion of both masks, fiberoptic confirmation of correct positioning, failures of insertion, presence of blood staining, sore throat, presence of air leak and insertion time.Material and methodsAmerican Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients aged >18 years, scheduled for elective minor ambulatory surgery under general anesthesia with a LMA were included. Patients were randomized in the LMA Protector™ or LMA Supreme™ group based on a computer-generated random sequence table. After general anesthesia induction, oropharyngeal leak pressures were measured.ResultsOropharyngeal leak pressures were significantly higher (P < 0.0001) for LMA Protector™ compared to LMA Supreme™ at different cuff volumes and a cuff pressure of 65 cm H2O. Insertion time was significantly higher for the LMA Protector™ (29 sec) [interquartile range (IQR) 23, 35] compared to the LMA Supreme™ (19 sec) (IQR 16, 22) (P < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences in ease of insertion (number of attempts for succesful positioning), failures of insertion, presence of blood staining, sore throat or presence of air leak.ConclusionOropharyngeal leak pressures were consistently higher (>5 cm H2O) for LMA Protector™ compared to LMA Supreme™. LMA Protector™, therefore, allows effective ventilation at higher airway pressures than LMA Supreme™.Trial registrationhttp://clinicaltrials.gov.NCT03462550.

Project description:The Guardian Laryngeal Mask Airway (G-LMA) is a new silicone-based single-use extraglottic device with the drainage port and a cuff pilot valve with pressure indicator. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical performance of this laryngeal mask airway with ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (P-LMA).In this prospective randomized study, we included adult patients with ASA grading I and II scheduled for elective surgery requiring supine position under total intravenous anesthesia. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups, 40 in each. G-LMA and P-LMA were used in groups G and P respectively. The cuff of each device was air inflated to 60 cmH2O. The primary outcome was to compare the airway sealing pressure and the secondary outcome was to compare the efficacy and safety of these two devices with respect to insertion success, insertion time, ease of insertion, volume of air for cuff inflation to 60 cmH2O, intracuff pressure measurement, gastric tube insertion attempt, gastric tube insertion time, Fiberoptic laryngeal view, and postoperative pharyngolaryngeal morbidity.The airway sealing pressure at 60 cmH2O cuff pressure was significantly greater in G-LMA than P-LMA (p?=?0.04).The first successful attempt of both groups were comparable (p?=?1.000). Insertion time was significantly shorter in G-LMA than P-LMA (p?<?0.0001). The first successful attempt for the gastric tube insertion in both groups was comparable (p?=?0.431). Gastric tube insertion time was less in G-LMA than in P-LMA (p?<?0.0001). The volume of air for cuff inflation to 60 cmH2O was more in G-LMA than in P-LMA (<0.0001). The intracuff pressure measurement at 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes were comparable (p?=?0.823, 0.182, 0.870, 0.658).We did not find differences in ease of insertion (p?=?0.60); Fiber-optic positions of airway devices were comparable (p?=?0.83). In addition, blood staining (p?=?1.00), sore throat and dysphagia at 1, 2 and 24 hour (p?=?1.00) were comparable in both groups.The Guardian laryngeal mask airway was associated with high airway sealing pressure with a quicker insertion of the device as well as gastric tube.Clinical Trial.gov Identifier: NCT02063516. Date: June 2013.

Project 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.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Bag mask ventilation (BMV) and extraglottic devices (EGDs) are two common methods of providing rescue ventilation. BMV can be difficult to perform effectively, especially for inexperienced providers and in patients with difficult airway characteristics. There is some evidence that the laryngeal tube (LT) can be successfully placed by inexperienced providers to provide effective ventilation. However, it is unclear whether ventilation provided by LT is superior to that of BMV, especially in the hands of inexperienced airway providers. Therefore, we aimed to compare ventilation efficacy of inexperienced airway providers with BMV versus LT by primarily measuring tidal volumes and secondarily measuring peak pressures on a simulated model. METHODS:We performed a crossover study first year emergency medicine residents and third and fourth year medical students. After a brief instructional video followed by hands on practice, participants performed both techniques in random order on a simulated model for two minutes each. Returned tidal volumes and peak pressures were measured. RESULTS:Twenty participants were enrolled and 1200 breaths were measured, 600 per technique. The median ventilation volumes were 194 milliliters (mL) for BMV, and 387 mL for the laryngeal tube, with a median absolute difference of 170 mL (95% confidence interval [CI] 157-182 mL) (mean difference 148 mL [95% CI, 138-158 mL], p<0.001). The median ventilation peak pressures were 23 centimeters of water (cm H2O) for BMV, and 30 cm H2O for the laryngeal tube, with a median absolute difference of 7 cm H2O (95% CI, 6-8 cm H2O) (mean difference 8 cm H2O [95% CI, 7-9 cm H2O], p<0.001). CONCLUSION:Inexperienced airway providers were able to provide higher ventilation volumes and peak pressures with the LT when compared to BMV in a manikin model. Inexperienced providers should consider using an LT when providing rescue ventilations in obtunded or hypoventilating patients without intact airway reflexes. Further study is required to understand whether these findings are generalizable to live patients.

Project description:Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) may be considered by health caregivers of level I-II hospitals for neonatal resuscitation and stabilization before and during interhospital care, but literature provides little information on this aspect. This study reviewed the use of LMA during stabilization and transport in a large series of neonates. This is a retrospective study evaluating the use of LMA in infants who underwent emergency transport by the Eastern Veneto Neonatal Emergency Transport Service between January 2003 and December 2021. All data were obtained from transport registry, transport forms, and hospital charts. In total, 64/3252 transferred neonates (2%) received positive pressure ventilation with an LMA, with increasing trend over time (p = 0.001). Most of these neonates were transferred after birth (97%), due to a respiratory or neurologic disease (95%). LMA was used before the transport (n = 60), during the transport (n = 1), or both (n = 3). No device-related adverse effects were recorded. Sixty-one neonates (95%) survived and were discharged/transferred from the receiving center.ConclusionIn a large series of transferred neonates, LMA use during stabilization and transport was rare but increasing over time, and showed some heterogeneity among referring centers. In our series, LMA was safe and lifesaving in "cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate" situations. Future prospective, multicenter research may provide detailed insights on LMA use in neonates needing postnatal transport.What is known• A supraglottic airway device may be used as an alternative to face mask and endotracheal tube during neonatal resuscitation. • The laryngeal mask may be considered by health caregivers of low-level hospitals with limited exposure on airway management, but literature provides little information on this aspect.What is new• In a large series of transferred neonates, laryngeal mask use was rare but increasing over time, and showed some heterogeneity among referring centers. • The laryngeal mask was safe and lifesaving in "cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate" situations.

Dataset Information

Clinical application of limiting laryngeal mask airway cuff pressures utilizing inflating syringe intrinsic recoil.

Publications

Clinical application of limiting laryngeal mask airway cuff pressures utilizing inflating syringe intrinsic recoil.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets