Comparison of Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask and air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway for blind tracheal intubation in adults: A randomized controlled trial
Sethi, S., Maitra, S., Saini, V., Samara, T. (2017). Comparison of Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask and air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway for blind tracheal intubation in adults: A randomized controlled trial. EKB Journal Management System, 33(2), 137-140. doi: 10.1016/j.egja.2017.03.002
Sameer Sethi; Souvik Maitra; Vikas Saini; Tanvir Samara. "Comparison of Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask and air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway for blind tracheal intubation in adults: A randomized controlled trial". EKB Journal Management System, 33, 2, 2017, 137-140. doi: 10.1016/j.egja.2017.03.002
Sethi, S., Maitra, S., Saini, V., Samara, T. (2017). 'Comparison of Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask and air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway for blind tracheal intubation in adults: A randomized controlled trial', EKB Journal Management System, 33(2), pp. 137-140. doi: 10.1016/j.egja.2017.03.002
Sethi, S., Maitra, S., Saini, V., Samara, T. Comparison of Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask and air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway for blind tracheal intubation in adults: A randomized controlled trial. EKB Journal Management System, 2017; 33(2): 137-140. doi: 10.1016/j.egja.2017.03.002

Comparison of Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask and air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway for blind tracheal intubation in adults: A randomized controlled trial

Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia
Volume 33, Issue 2, April 2017, Page 137-140  XML PDF (403.05 K)
DOI: 10.1016/j.egja.2017.03.002
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Sameer Sethi; Souvik Maitra; Vikas Saini; Tanvir Samara
Abstract
Background
This study has been designed to compare the performance of Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask with the air-Q™ as a conduit for blind tracheal intubation in adult patients.
Methods
In this prospective randomized controlled trial blind endotracheal intubation success rates were compared between Ambu® AuraGain™ and air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway in 90 adult patients. Patients were randomized in two equal groups: Group Ambu® AuraGain™ (n = 45) and Group air-Q™ (n = 45).
Results
Time to insert the laryngeal airway was similar between Ambu® AuraGain™ and air-Q™ (median [IQR] 13[12–14] s versus 14[12–16] s) and in all cases laryngeal mask insertion was possible in first attempt. Intubation success rate at first attempt was significantly higher in air-Q™ group compared to in Ambu® AuraGain™ group (68.9% versus 35.6%; p = 0.002). Overall blind intubation success rate was significantly higher in air-Q™ group in comparison to Ambu® AuraGain™ (80% versus 53.3%; p = 0.007). Intubation time was significantly higher with Ambu® AuraGain™ (p < 0.0001; median difference 4.0 s, 95% CI 2.7, 5.3 s). Blind intubation was significantly easier in air-Q™ group compared to in Ambu® AuraGain™ (42.2% intubation was graded as easy in air-Q™ instead of 22.2% in Ambu® AuraGain™, p = 0.04). Comparison of fibreoptic bronchoscopic glottis view was similar between the two devices (p = 0.07). Reported complications were infrequent and similar between the two devices.
Conclusion
We conclude that air-Q™ laryngeal airway is superior to Ambu® AuraGain™ when used as a conduit for blind endotracheal intubation in adult patients.
Trial registration
Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2015/02/005553).
Statistics
Article View: 34
PDF Download: 14