• Paediatric anaesthesia · Aug 2015

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study

    Comparison of air-Q and Ambu Aura-i for controlled ventilation in infants: a randomized controlled trial.

    • Vanlal Darlong, Ghansham Biyani, Dalim K Baidya, Ravindra Pandey, Chandralekha Department of Anesthesiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India., Jyotsna Punj, and Ashish D Upadhyay.
    • Department of Anesthesiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
    • Paediatr Anaesth. 2015 Aug 1;25(8):795-800.

    BackgroundThe air-Q is a new supraglottic airway device (SAD) and has been increasingly used as a primary airway device and as a conduit for tracheal intubation in children as well as in adults. This device has either performed equally or better than other SADs in children. The Ambu Aura-i is a commonly used SAD in children undergoing various short surgical procedures. However, limited literature is available evaluating the safety and efficacy of the air-Q and the Ambu Aura-i in small children. We, therefore, conducted this study to compare the clinical performance of these two airway devices in infants weighing up to 10 kg. Our hypothesis is that air-Q, due to its improved and larger cuff design will yield better airway seal pressures as compared with the Ambu Aura-i.MethodsSixty-four ASA I-II infants weighing <10 kg undergoing elective ophthalmic surgery were randomly assigned to receive either an air-Q or the Ambu Aura-i. After induction of general anesthesia (GA) and muscle relaxation, we measured oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP) as the primary outcome. The secondary end points measured were time to insert, first insertion success rate, fiberoptic grade (FO) of laryngeal view and any other airway complications like trauma, laryngospasm, and desaturation.ResultsThe air-Q ILA provided significantly higher OLP as compared with the Ambu Aura-i [20.2 ± 4.6 cm H2 O, CI 18.55-21.88; vs 16.2 ± 5.6 cmH2 O, CI 14.27-18.25, P = 0.003; mean difference 4 ± 1.29 cm H2 O, CI 1.41-6.58]. However, the Ambu Aura-i required significantly less time for its insertion (14.6 ± 2.8 s, CI 13.66-15.70; vs 16.3 ± 1.5 s, CI 15.75-16.86, P = 0.005; mean difference 1.625 ±  0.56 s, CI 0.48-2.76). There were no differences in first insertion success rate, FO view, and postoperative complications.ConclusionWe conclude that air-Q may be considered superior to Ambu Aura-i in infants for controlled ventilation as it provides higher airway sealing pressures.© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    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..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.