scholarly journals Clinical performance of Ambu AuraGainTM versus i-gelTM in anesthetized children: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-180
Author(s):  
Ji-Hyun Lee ◽  
Seungpyo Nam ◽  
Young-Eun Jang ◽  
Eun-Hee Kim ◽  
Hee-Soo Kim ◽  
...  

Background: Ambu AuraGain and i-gel have different characteristics in design each other. However, few reports evaluate which device has more benefits for ventilation in children undergoing paralyzed general anesthesia. This prospective, randomized controlled trial compared the clinical performance AuraGain and i-gel in anesthetized children.Methods: Children aged between 1 month and 7 years undergoing elective surgery were randomly assigned to the AuraGain and i-gel groups. The primary outcome was initial oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). Secondary outcomes were OLP at 10 min post-insertion, first-attempt and total insertion success rates, number of attempts and ease of gastric suction catheter placement, peak inspiratory pressure, fiberoptic bronchoscopic view score, ventilation quality, requirement of additional manipulation post-insertion, and complications.Results: Data of 93 patients were analyzed. The initial OLPs of the AuraGain and i-gel were 27.5 ± 7.7 and 25.0 ± 8.0 cmH2O, respectively (P = 0.13). The OLP was significantly increased 10 min post-insertion in both groups. The initial success rates of the AuraGain and i-gel insertion were comparable. Suction catheter placement via the gastric port was easier (P = 0.02) and fiberoptic bronchoscopic view was better with the AuraGain (P < 0.001). The i-gel required additional manipulations post-insertion (P = 0.04). The incidence of complications during the emergence period was 2.2% for the i-gel and 10.8% for the AuraGain (P = 0.1)Conclusions: OLP is comparable between AuraGain and i-gel. The AuraGain would be more favorable than the i-gel for use in pediatric patients under general anesthesia considering other outcomes.

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting-Yang Huang ◽  
Jr-Rung Lin ◽  
Yung-Tai Chung

Abstract Background Nasogastric intubation (NGI) is usually challenging in patients under general anesthesia, with reported success rate at the first attempt to be less than 50%. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a preinstalled nasopharyngeal airway (NPA) in the right nasal passageway can facilitate NGI in anesthetized and intubated patients. Methods A prospective randomized controlled trial including 108 patients scheduled for elective intra-abdominal surgeries requiring a nasogastric tube (NGT) was conducted. Fifty-three patients were randomized to receive NGI through a preinstalled NPA in the right nasal passageway (Group NPA) and 55 patients to receive NGI via the right nostril (Group O). The primary outcomes were success rates of NGI at first attempt, success rates of NGI in accumulative attempts, durations of successful NGI at the first attempt and success rates of NGI for the rescuing methods. The secondary outcomes were bleeding incidence and hemodynamic changes induced by NGI. Results Success rate of NGI at the first attempt was 83.0% in Group NPA compared with 47.3% in Group O [P < 0.001; absolute risk reduction (ARR) = 35.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 19.1–52.4%; relative risk reduction (RRR) = 67.8%] and success rate of NGI in accumulative attempts (two attempts maximum) was 88.7% in Group NPA compared with 63.6% in Group O (P = 0.002; ARR = 25.0%, 95% CI = 9.7–40.4%; RRR = 68.9%). Duration for NGI successful at the first attempt in Group NPA was significantly longer than that in Group O (56.3 vs. 27.1 s; P < 0.001; Mean difference = 29.2 s, 95% CI = 20.0–38.4 s). Neither bleeding incidence nor hemodynamic response is significantly different between the two study groups. Conclusions The study indicates a preinstalled NPA in the right nasal passageway facilitates NGI in anesthetized and intubated patients as an initial NGI method and as a rescuing method for patients undergoing two unsuccessful initial attempts of NGI without a preinstalled NPA. However, the NPA method proved to take more time than the routine method for NGI successful at the first attempt. Trial registration: The study was conducted after receiving approval from Institutional Review Board of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou branch, Taiwan (registration number 201800138A3; April 11, 2018), and the clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03697642; Principal Investigator: Ting-Yang Huang; Date of registration: October 4, 2018; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/NCT03697642).


2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Gemma ◽  
Elisa Nicelli ◽  
Luigi Gioia ◽  
Elena Moizo ◽  
Luigi Beretta ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document