• J C Garzón Sánchez, T López Correa, and J A Sastre Rincón.
• Servicio de Anestesiología y Reanimación, Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, España. Electronic address: jcgarzon62@hotmail.com.
• Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2014 Apr 1; 61 (4): 190-5.

Background And ObjectivesSupraglottic airway devices are increasingly used in anesthesia and emergency medicine as a rescue for intubation and ventilation. This study was designed to investigate the air-Q(®) supralaryngeal device and compare it with the ILMA-Fastrach™ for airway rescue and intubation.Patients And MethodsThe devices were inserted in 80 patients (40 patients in each group) according to manufacturer' instructions. An inspiration pressure of 20cmH2O was applied through a ventilator for checking air leaks. If no air leak was detected, the glottis status was checked using a pediatric fiberoptic bronchoscope, followed by introducing an endotracheal tube through the supraglottic device. If the first attempt was unsuccessful, the device was removed and a second attempt was made in the same way. The primary outcome was the overall success rate for intubation. Other measurements were: successful ventilation, fiberoptic glottis view and adverse events.ResultsSuccessful first-attempt ventilation was better with the Fastrach™ than with the air-Q(®) (90 vs. 60%, P=.0019) and overall ventilation success (first plus second attempts) was also better with ILMA-Fastrach™ (95 vs. 80%, P=.04). View of the glottis,according to Brimacombe scale, was better with air-Q(®) (84.62 vs. 37.50%, P=.0017) at the second, but not at the first, attempt. There were no differences in the percentage of successful intubations between the 2 devices. The incidence of sore throat was similar with both devices. Two patients in the air-Q(®) group suffered hoarseness and arterial desaturation, but the difference was not statistically significant.ConclusionsBoth the ILMA-Fastrach™ and the air-Q(®) provided a similar rate of successful intubation, but ILMA-Fastrach™ was better for ventilation. The rate of adverse events was similar with both devices. Because no additional maneuver was used to facilitated intubation, there needs to be further studies to confirm these findings.Copyright © 2013 Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor. Published by Elsevier España. All rights reserved.

29 keywords...

hide…