TY - JOUR
T1 - Flexible optical intubation via the Ambu Aura-i vs blind intubation via the single-use LMA Fastrach
T2 - a prospective randomized clinical trial
AU - Artime, Carlos A.
AU - Altamirano, Alfonso
AU - Normand, Katherine C.
AU - Ferrario, Lara
AU - Aijazi, Hassan
AU - Cattano, Davide
AU - Hagberg, Carin A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/9/1
Y1 - 2016/9/1
N2 - Study Objective: This study was designed to compare the Ambu Aura-i to the single-use LMA Fastrach regarding time to intubation, success rate, and airway morbidity in patients undergoing elective surgery requiring general anesthesia. Design: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. Setting: Academic medical center. Patients: Sixty-five adult patients scheduled for elective surgery requiring general anesthesia. Interventions: Patients were randomized into 2 groups. Group A (n = 33) were intubated using Ambu Aura-i and the Ambu aScope 2, a disposable flexible intubating scope, whereas those in group B (n = 33) were blindly intubated using the Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (ILMA). Measurements: First-attempt intubation success rate, overall intubation success rate, time to intubation, incidence of airway morbidity. Main results: The data demonstrated that time for endotracheal intubation in the ILMA group was significantly shorter than in the Ambu Aura-i group (P <.05). There was no difference in the first-attempt intubation success rate (Aura-i = 26/33, 78.8%; ILMA = 27/33, 81.8%; P =.757) or the overall intubation success rate (Aura-i = 29/33, 87.9%; ILMA = 31/33, 93.9%; P =.392) between the groups. Four patients (12%) in the Ambu Aura-i group had a failed intubation; 1 was due to a failure of the aScope monitor, whereas 3 were due to inability to visualize the glottis. Two patients (7%) in the ILMA group had a failed intubation due to esophageal intubation. There was no statistically significant difference in airway morbidity between the 2 groups. Conclusions: The data suggest that intubation with the ILMA is faster but that first-attempt and overall intubation success rates were comparable in both groups. The results suggest that although the flexible intubating scope-guided Aura-i does not outperform blind intubation via the ILMA, the technique is comparable in terms of first-attempt and overall intubation success rate.
AB - Study Objective: This study was designed to compare the Ambu Aura-i to the single-use LMA Fastrach regarding time to intubation, success rate, and airway morbidity in patients undergoing elective surgery requiring general anesthesia. Design: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. Setting: Academic medical center. Patients: Sixty-five adult patients scheduled for elective surgery requiring general anesthesia. Interventions: Patients were randomized into 2 groups. Group A (n = 33) were intubated using Ambu Aura-i and the Ambu aScope 2, a disposable flexible intubating scope, whereas those in group B (n = 33) were blindly intubated using the Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway (ILMA). Measurements: First-attempt intubation success rate, overall intubation success rate, time to intubation, incidence of airway morbidity. Main results: The data demonstrated that time for endotracheal intubation in the ILMA group was significantly shorter than in the Ambu Aura-i group (P <.05). There was no difference in the first-attempt intubation success rate (Aura-i = 26/33, 78.8%; ILMA = 27/33, 81.8%; P =.757) or the overall intubation success rate (Aura-i = 29/33, 87.9%; ILMA = 31/33, 93.9%; P =.392) between the groups. Four patients (12%) in the Ambu Aura-i group had a failed intubation; 1 was due to a failure of the aScope monitor, whereas 3 were due to inability to visualize the glottis. Two patients (7%) in the ILMA group had a failed intubation due to esophageal intubation. There was no statistically significant difference in airway morbidity between the 2 groups. Conclusions: The data suggest that intubation with the ILMA is faster but that first-attempt and overall intubation success rates were comparable in both groups. The results suggest that although the flexible intubating scope-guided Aura-i does not outperform blind intubation via the ILMA, the technique is comparable in terms of first-attempt and overall intubation success rate.
KW - Ambu Aura-I
KW - Flexible scope intubation
KW - LMA Fastrach
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962756774&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84962756774&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.01.002
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.01.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 27555131
AN - SCOPUS:84962756774
SN - 0952-8180
VL - 33
SP - 41
EP - 46
JO - Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
JF - Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
ER -