Blind intubation of anaesthetised children with supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q cannot be recommended: A randomised controlled trial.

Kleine-Brüggeney, Maren; Nicolet, Anna Daniela; Nabecker, Sabine; Seiler, Stefan Jürg; Stucki Junker, Franziska; Greif, Robert; Theiler, Lorenz (2015). Blind intubation of anaesthetised children with supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q cannot be recommended: A randomised controlled trial. European journal of anaesthesiology, 32(9), pp. 631-639. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000261

Text 00003643-900000000-98937.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (241kB)

BACKGROUND

Paediatric supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q were designed as conduits for tracheal intubation. Although fibreoptic-guided intubation has proved successful, blind intubation as a rescue technique has never been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of blind intubation through AmbuAura-i and Air-Q. On the basis of fibreoptic view data, we hypothesised that the success rate with the AmbuAura-i would be higher than with the Air-Q.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomised controlled trial with institutional review board (IRB) approval and written informed consent.

SETTING

University Childrens' Hospital; September 2012 to July 2014.

PATIENTS

Eighty children, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I to III, weight 5 to 50 kg.

INTERVENTIONS

Tracheal intubation was performed through the randomised device with the tip of a fibrescope placed inside and proximal to the tip of the tracheal tube. This permitted sight of tube advancement, but without fibreoptic guidance (visualised blind intubation).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was successfully visualised blind intubation; secondary outcomes included supraglottic airway device success, insertion times, airway leak pressure, fibreoptic view and adverse events.

RESULTS

Personal data did not differ between groups. In contrast to our hypothesis, blind intubation was possible in 15% with the Air-Q and in 3% with the AmbuAura-i [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 6 to 31 vs. 0 to 13%; P = 0.057]. First attempt supraglottic airway device insertion success rates were 95% (Air-Q) and 100% (AmbuAura-i; 95% CI 83 to 99 vs. 91 to 100; P = 0.49). Median leak pressures were 18 cmH2O (Air-Q) and 17 cmH2O [AmbuAura-i; interquartile range (IQR) 14 to 18 vs. 14 to 19 cmH2O; P = 0.66]. Air-Q insertion was slower (27 vs. 19 s, P < 0.001). There was no difference in fibreoptic view, or adverse events (P > 0.05). In one child (Air-Q size 1.5, tube size 3.5), the tube dislocated during device removal.

CONCLUSION

Ventilation with both devices is reliable, but success of blind intubation is unacceptably low and cannot be recommended for elective or rescue purposes. If intubation through a paediatric supraglottic airway device is desired, we suggest that fibreoptic guidance is used.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01692522.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

1 since deposited on 19 Jun 2015
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item