-
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand · May 2022
Randomized Controlled TrialAuraGain™ versus i-gel™ for Bronchoscopic Intubation under Continuous Oxygenation: a Randomised Controlled Trial.
- Christine N Svendsen, Charlotte V Rosenstock, Gine L Glargaard, Camilla Strøm, LangeKai H WKHWDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Nordsjaellands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark.Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark., and Lars H Lundstrøm.
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Nordsjaellands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark.
- Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2022 May 1; 66 (5): 589-597.
IntroductionAfter failed mask ventilation and tracheal intubation, guidelines issued by the Difficult Airway Society recommend placing a second generation supraglottic airway device to secure oxygenation. Ultimately, a secure airway can be obtained by tracheal intubation through the supraglottic airway device using a bronchoscope. In this randomised trial, we compared the AuraGain™ with the i-gel™ as conduit for bronchoscopic intubation under continuous oxygenation performed by a group of anaesthesiologists with variable experience in a general population of patients.MethodWe randomised one hundred patients who were equally allocated to flexible bronchoscopic intubation through the i-gel™ or the AuraGain™. In a random order, 25 anaesthesiologists each performed four intubations, two using the i-gel™ and two using the AuraGain™. Our primary outcome was 'total time for airway management'; i.e. total time from manually reaching the SAD to successful FBI confirmed at the end of the first inspiratory downstroke on the capnography curve.ResultsIn total, 87% (95% CI, 79%-92%) of the patients were successfully intubated through the allocated supraglottic airway device. There was no difference in total time for airway management between the i-gel™ and the AuraGain™ (199 vs. 227 s, p = .076). However, there was a difference in time for placement of the i-gel™, compared to the AuraGain™, (37 vs. 54 s, p < .001). There were nine failed intubations in the AuraGain™ group compared to four in the i-gel™ group (p = .147).ConclusionWe found no difference in total time for airway management between using the i-gel™ and using the AuraGain™.© 2022 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.