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
  • [21] Head elevation and laryngeal mask airway Supreme insertion: A randomized controlled trial
    Park, Jun-Young
    Yu, Jihion
    Hong, Jun Hyuk
    Hwang, Jai-Hyun
    Kim, Young-Kug
    ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2021, 65 (03) : 343 - 350
  • [22] Comparing the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway with the laryngeal tube airway -: In response
    Figueredo, E
    Martinez, M
    ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2003, 97 (04): : 1203 - 1203
  • [23] Resistive load of laryngeal mask airway and proseal laryngeal mask airway in mechanically ventilated patients
    Natalini, G
    Rosano, A
    Lanza, G
    Martinelli, E
    Pletti, C
    Bernardini, A
    ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2003, 47 (06) : 761 - 764
  • [24] Airway protection with the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway in a child
    Keller, C
    Brimacombe, J
    Von Goedecke, A
    Lirk, P
    PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, 2004, 14 (12) : 1021 - 1022
  • [25] Airway leak pressure of the ProSeal®-laryngeal mask airway
    Freisburger, C.
    Goldmann, K.
    ANAESTHESIST, 2006, 55 (12): : 1255 - 1258
  • [26] A randomized controlled trial comparing the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway with the laryngeal tube suction in mechanically ventilated patients
    Gaitini, LA
    Vaida, SJ
    Somri, M
    Yanovski, B
    Ben-David, B
    Hagberg, CA
    ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2004, 101 (02) : 316 - 320
  • [27] Size 2 ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway:: a randomized, crossover investigation with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paediatric patients
    Goldmann, K
    Jakob, C
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2005, 94 (03) : 385 - 389
  • [28] Comparison of incidence of sore throat with laryngeal mask airway Protector and laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: A randomised clinical trial
    Mohan, Vidya
    Rudingwa, Priya
    Panneerselvam, Sakthirajan
    Kuberan, Aswini
    Srinivasan, Gnanasekaran
    Arulprakasam, Santhosh
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2024, 68 (07) : 637 - 643
  • [29] The size 11/2 ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway in infants:: A randomized, crossover investigation with the Classic™ laryngeal mask airway
    Goldmann, K
    Roettger, C
    Wulf, H
    ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2006, 102 (02): : 405 - 410
  • [30] Comparisons of clinical performance of guardian laryngeal mask with laryngeal mask airway ProSeal
    Ajay Kumar Pajiyar
    Zhiting Wen
    Haiyun Wang
    Lin Ma
    Lumin Miao
    Guolin Wang
    BMC Anesthesiology, 15