Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial

被引:81
|
作者
Seet, Edwin [1 ]
Rajeev, Subramanyam [1 ]
Firoz, Tamal [1 ]
Yousaf, Farhanah [1 ]
Wong, Jean [1 ]
Wong, David T. [1 ]
Chung, Frances [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Dept Anesthesia, Univ Hlth Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
关键词
ambulatory procedures; laryngeal mask airway ProSeal; laryngeal mask airway Supreme; oropharyngeal leak pressure; pharyngolaryngeal adverse events; ADULT PATIENTS; MANAGEMENT; ANESTHESIA; PRESSURE; DEVICES;
D O I
10.1097/EJA.0b013e32833679e3
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background and objective The Supreme laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is a new single-use polyvinyl chloride supraglottic device that combines the functionality of the ProSeal and Fastrach airways. High oropharyngeal leak pressures are important as they indicate airway protection, feasibility of positive pressure ventilation and likelihood of successful LMA placement. The oropharyngeal leak pressure of the LMA Supreme is not well established versus the LMA ProSeal. This study was designed to compare the safety and efficacy of the LMA Supreme versus the LMA ProSeal in elective ambulatory procedures. Method Hospital ethics board approval was obtained. One hundred and five patients were consented and randomly allocated to LMA Supreme or ProSeal groups. Anaesthesia was induced with intravenous propofol 2-3 mg kg(-1) and fentanyl 1-2 mu g kg(-1) and maintained with desflurane in an air-oxygen mixture. Anaesthesiologists with more than 5 years of experience performed all of the LMA insertions. Manometry was used to standardize intracuff pressure at 60 cmH(2)O. The primary outcome was the oropharyngeal leak pressure. Secondary outcomes were the time and number of attempts for insertion, ease of insertion and the anaesthesiologist's satisfaction score of the airway device. The success on first attempt insertion was measured. Patients were interviewed postoperatively for any pharyngolaryngeal adverse events. Results A total of 99 patients were analysed for the primary outcome. The baseline demographic data for both groups were comparable. The mean oropharyngeal leak pressure with the LMA Supreme was 21 +/- 5 cmH(2)O (95% confidence interval 20-22). This was significantly lower than that of the LMA ProSeal, 25 +/- 6 cmH(2)O (95% confidence interval 23-27; P<0.001). The success rate of the first attempt insertion was higher for the LMA Supreme than for the LMA ProSeal (98 and 88%, respectively; P=0.04). There was no difference in the median time taken for insertion with the LMA Supreme versus the LMA ProSeal: 26 s (interquartile range 23-45) versus 30 s (interquartile range 20-38), respectively (P-0.16). The ease of insertion, postoperative pharyngolaryngeal adverse events, patient satisfaction scores and anaesthesiologist's satisfaction scores were comparable in both groups. There were no complications of aspiration or nerve injuries. Conclusion The LMA Supreme has lower oropharyngeal leak pressures than the LMA ProSeal. The success of the first attempt insertion was higher for the LMA Supreme. The LMA Supreme is a safe, efficacious and easy-to-use disposable supraglottic airway device in elective ambulatory procedures. The higher rate of success on first attempt insertion may make it more suitable as an airway rescue device. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010;27:602-607
引用
收藏
页码:602 / 607
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of safety and efficacy of Supreme laryngeal mask airway and ProSeal laryngeal mask airway
    Xue, Fu S.
    Xiong, Jun
    Wang, Qiang
    Yuan, Yu J.
    Liao, Xu
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2010, 27 (08) : 757 - 758
  • [2] In reply to: Comparison of safety and efficacy of Supreme laryngeal mask airway and ProSeal laryngeal mask airway
    Seet, Edwin
    Chung, Frances
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2010, 27 (08) : 758 - 759
  • [3] Comparison of Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway and ProSeal Laryngeal Mask Airway during Cholecystectomy
    Hosten, Tulay
    Yildiz, Tulay Sahin
    Kus, Alparslan
    Solak, Mine
    Toker, Kamil
    BALKAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 29 (03) : 314 - 319
  • [4] A RANDOMIZED CROSSOVER COMPARISON OF THE LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY PROSEAL AND LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY SUPREME IN ANESTHETIZED ADULT PATIENTS
    Jannu, Vinayaka
    Dhorigol, M. G.
    Sanikop, C. S.
    JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION OF MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCIENCES-JEMDS, 2015, 4 (85): : 14828 - 14833
  • [5] The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway
    Dalgleish, DJ
    Dolgner, M
    ANAESTHESIA, 2001, 56 (10) : 1010 - 1010
  • [6] A comparison of the Supreme™ laryngeal mask airway with the Proseal™ laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed adult patients: a randomized crossover study
    Tham, Huae Min
    Tan, Su Meng
    Woon, Kwee Lian
    Zhao, Yu Dong
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE, 2010, 57 (07): : 672 - 678
  • [7] Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway versus Face Mask during Neonatal Resuscitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Trevisanuto, Daniele
    Cavallin, Francesco
    Loi Ngoc Nguyen
    Tien Viet Nguyen
    Linh Dieu Tran
    Chien Dinh Tran
    Doglioni, Nicoletta
    Micaglio, Massimo
    Moccia, Luciano
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 2015, 167 (02): : 286 - +
  • [8] Proseal Laryngeal mask airway or Classic Laryngeal mask airway in spontaneous ventilation?
    Galarioti, V.
    Michaloliakou, Ch.
    Kalanzi, N.
    Pagoulatou, A.
    Andrianopoulou, A.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2004, 21 : 68 - 68
  • [9] Comparison of laryngeal mask airway supreme and laryngeal mask airway proseal for laryngopharyngeal trauma and postoperative morbidity in children
    Aydogmus, Meltem Turkay
    Eksioglu, Birsen
    Oba, Sibel
    Unsal, Oya
    Turk, Hacer Sebnem Yeltepe
    Sinikoglu, Saki Nadir
    Tug, Aslihan
    REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE ANESTESIOLOGIA, 2013, 63 (06): : 445 - 449
  • [10] Comparison of Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme and Laryngeal Mask Airway Proseal with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial
    Belena, Jose M.
    Nunez, Monica
    Anta, Diego
    Carnero, Maria
    Gracia, Jose L.
    Ayala, Jose L.
    Alvarez, Raquel
    Yuste, Javier
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2013, 30 (03) : 119 - 123