» Articles » PMID: 30855468

Comparison of Laryngeal Mask Airway SupremeTM As Non-inflatable Cuff Device and Self-pressurized Air-QTM in Children: Randomized Controlled Non-inferiority Study

Overview
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2019 Mar 12
PMID 30855468
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Supraglottic airway (SGA) device with non-inflatable cuff reduce the airway complications associated with cuff hyperinflation. The aim of the study is to determine whether the default setting of Supreme is as effective as the non-inflatable cuff devices. The oropharyngeal leak pressure was measured and compared between the Supreme and Air-Q, a typical non-inflatable cuff device. We hypothesized that the default setting of Supreme is non-inferior to the the Air-Q self-pressurized (SP) in respect to the oropharyngeal leak pressure.

Methods: Eighty-four patients aged 1 to 7 years who were scheduled for general anesthesia, participated in the study. The patients were randomly assigned to Supreme group (n = 41) or Air-Q SP group (n = 43). We considered that the primary outcome, oropharyngeal leak pressure of Supreme group would be non-inferior to the Air-Q SP group, within 3 cmH2O. Other outcomes included tidal volume loss, difficulty of insertion, insertion time, and complications.

Results: The oropharyngeal leak pressure of the Supreme and Air-Q SP was 19.9 ± 4.1 cm H2O and 17.4 ± 2.9 cm H2O, respectively. The mean differences of 2 devices (Air-Q SP-Supreme) were -2.5 cm H2O, (95% confidence interval [-4.0 to -0.9], P = .002). The upper CI was smaller than the non-inferiorty margin (3 cm H2O). This result suggested that the default setting of Supreme was superior to the Air-Q SP with respect to the oropharyngeal leak pressure. However, there were no significant differences in tidal volume loss over time, ease of device insertion score, insertion time, and complications.

Conclusions: The Supreme can be used in the default setting in pediatric patients accordingly in terms of tolerable leak pressure and the stability for mechanical ventilation compared with Air-Q SP.

Citing Articles

Comparison between Air-Q Self Pressurized Airway Device with Blocker and Proseal Laryngeal Mask Airway in anesthetized paralyzed adult female patients undergoing elective gynecological operations.

Ismail Youssef M, Dobal N, Hammad Y, El-Refai N, Abdelrahman R Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2024; 56(2):108-120.

PMID: 39166502 PMC: 11284585. DOI: 10.5114/ait.2024.141203.


Comparative evaluation of self-pressurized Air-Q and Proseal™ LMA in patients undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia: A randomized clinical trial.

Rana S, Anand L, Singh M, Kapoor D, Gupta D, Kaur H J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2024; 40(2):336-343.

PMID: 38919429 PMC: 11196046. DOI: 10.4103/joacp.joacp_248_22.


[Update 2022: interdisciplinary statement on airway management with supraglottic airway devices in pediatric emergency medicine-The laryngeal mask is and remains state of the art : Joint statement of the Institute for Emergency Medicine and Medicine...].

Guth J, Jung P, Schiele A, Urban B, Parsch A, Matsche B Anaesthesiologie. 2023; 72(6):425-432.

PMID: 37222766 DOI: 10.1007/s00101-023-01284-2.

References
1.
Wilson I, Fell D, Robinson S, Smith G . Cardiovascular responses to insertion of the laryngeal mask. Anaesthesia. 1992; 47(4):300-2. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1992.tb02168.x. View

2.
Maitra S, Baidya D, Bhattacharjee S, Khanna P . Evaluation of i-gel(™) airway in children: a meta-analysis. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014; 24(10):1072-9. DOI: 10.1111/pan.12483. View

3.
White M, Cook T, Stoddart P . A critique of elective pediatric supraglottic airway devices. Paediatr Anaesth. 2009; 19 Suppl 1:55-65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2009.02997.x. View

4.
Kim M, Lee J, Han S, Im Y, Kang H, Lee J . A randomized comparison of the i-gel with the self-pressurized air-Q intubating laryngeal airway in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015; 25(4):405-12. DOI: 10.1111/pan.12609. View

5.
Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Keller C . A comparison of four methods for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth. 2001; 11(3):319-21. DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2001.00649.x. View