Dataset Information

Does the revised intubating laryngeal tube (ILTS-D2) perform better than the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach)? - a randomised simulation research study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The intubating laryngeal tube (ILTS-D™) and the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach™) are devices that facilitate both extraglottic application and blind tracheal intubation. A revised model of the iLTS-D (for scientific reasons called ILTS-D2) has been designed but not yet evaluated. Therefore, we compared the ILTS-D2 with the established Fastrach under controlled conditions in a prospective randomised controlled simulation research study. METHODS:After ethical approval, we randomised 126 medical students into two groups. Each participant received either Fastrach or ILTS-D2 to perform five consecutive ventilation attempts in a manikin. The primary endpoint was the time to ventilation in the last attempt of using the devices as extraglottic devices. Secondary endpoints were the time to tracheal intubation and the success rates. RESULTS:There was no relevant difference between the two devices in the time to ventilation in the last of five attempts (Fastrach: median 14?s [IQR: 12-15]; ILTS-D2: median 13?s [IQR: 12-15], p =?0.592). Secondary endpoints showed a 2?s faster blind tracheal intubation using the Fastrach than using the ILTS-D2 (Fastrach: median 14?s [IQR: 13-17]; ILTS-D2: median 16?s [IQR: 15-20] p

SUBMITTER: Ott T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7212614 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does the revised intubating laryngeal tube (ILTS-D2) perform better than the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach)? - a randomised simulation research study.

Ott Thomas T Tschöpe Katharina K Toenges Gerrit G Buggenhagen Holger H Engelhard Kristin K Kriege Marc M

BMC anesthesiology 20200511 1

<h4>Background</h4>The intubating laryngeal tube (ILTS-D™) and the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach™) are devices that facilitate both extraglottic application and blind tracheal intubation. A revised model of the iLTS-D (for scientific reasons called ILTS-D2) has been designed but not yet evaluated. Therefore, we compared the ILTS-D2 with the established Fastrach under controlled conditions in a prospective randomised controlled simulation research study.<h4>Methods</h4>After ethical approva ...[more]

PMID: 32393169

Similar Datasets

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: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:BackgroundProSeal (PLMA) and Supreme (SLMA) laryngeal mask airways are effective ventilator devices with distinctive designs that may require different anaesthetics for insertion. Sevoflurane induction provides acceptable conditions for laryngeal mask insertion, and remifentanil significantly decreases the minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane required for that insertion. The study aimed to evaluate the optimal end-tidal (ET) sevoflurane concentration for successful insertion of PLMA versus SLMA in patients receiving a remifentanil infusion without a neuromuscular blocking agent.MethodsAltogether, 45 patients ASA (American Society Anaesthesiologists) physical status I-II, aged 18-60 years were scheduled for elective ambulatory surgery. Exclusion criteria were a difficult airway, recent respiratory infection, reactive airway, obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome, gastric aspiration's risk factors, pregnancy, and lactation. Patients were randomly allocated to receive the SLMA or the PLMA. Sevoflurane induction with co-administration of remifentanil was performed at an effect-site concentration of 4 ng mL- 1. ET50 was calculated with a modified Dixon's up-and-down method (starting at 2.5% in steps of 0.5%). Predetermined sevoflurane concentration was kept constant during the 10 min before LMA insertion. Patient's response to LMA insertion was classified as "movement" or "no movement". Sevoflurane ET50 was determined as the midpoint concentration of all the independent pairs that manifested crossover from "movement" to "no movement".ResultsThe ET50 sevoflurane concentration co-administered with remifentanil required for PLMA insertion was 1.20 ± 0.41% (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.63%). For SLMA insertion, it was 0.55 ± 0.38% (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.95%) (p = 0.019).ConclusionsThe end-tidal sevoflurane concentration with co-administered remifentanil required to allow insertion of the SLMA was 54% lower than that needed for inserting the PLMA.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03003377. Retrospectively registered. Date of registration: December 28, 2016.

Dataset Information

Does the revised intubating laryngeal tube (ILTS-D2) perform better than the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach)? - a randomised simulation research study.

Publications

Does the revised intubating laryngeal tube (ILTS-D2) perform better than the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach)? - a randomised simulation research study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure