• Thomas Ott, Katharina Tschöpe, Gerrit Toenges, Holger Buggenhagen, Kristin Engelhard, and Marc Kriege.
• Department of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany. ottth@uni-mainz.de.
• BMC Anesthesiol. 2020 May 11; 20 (1): 111.

BackgroundThe intubating laryngeal tube (ILTS-D™) and the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach™) are devices that facilitate both extraglottic application and blind tracheal intubation. A revised model of the iLTS-D (for scientific reasons called ILTS-D2) has been designed but not yet evaluated. Therefore, we compared the ILTS-D2 with the established Fastrach under controlled conditions in a prospective randomised controlled simulation research study.MethodsAfter ethical approval, we randomised 126 medical students into two groups. Each participant received either Fastrach or ILTS-D2 to perform five consecutive ventilation attempts in a manikin. The primary endpoint was the time to ventilation in the last attempt of using the devices as extraglottic devices. Secondary endpoints were the time to tracheal intubation and the success rates.ResultsThere was no relevant difference between the two devices in the time to ventilation in the last of five attempts (Fastrach: median 14 s [IQR: 12-15]; ILTS-D2: median 13 s [IQR: 12-15], p = 0.592). Secondary endpoints showed a 2 s faster blind tracheal intubation using the Fastrach than using the ILTS-D2 (Fastrach: median 14 s [IQR: 13-17]; ILTS-D2: median 16 s [IQR: 15-20] p < 0.001). For both devices, the success rates were 100% in the last attempt.ConclusionsConcerning extraglottic airway management, we could not detect a relevant difference between the revised ILTS-D2 and the Fastrach under laboratory conditions. We advocate for an evaluation of the ILTS-D2 in randomised controlled clinical trials.Trial RegistrationIdentifier at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03542747. May 31, 2018.

15 keywords...

hide…