Publication:
Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study.

cris.virtual.author-orcid0000-0003-0160-2073
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid07bf9ea1-8ad5-485d-a1a1-bad09dfb5e7e
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid7feae1c6-936f-4238-beb9-12ee2b6978a5
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid026b32d7-9fe9-48f0-9cbf-8b0d2138bef6
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid3e5f9518-08b5-4b2c-8b0f-3b03d7aad0bb
cris.virtualsource.author-orcidb6cd5251-35a7-4f2a-bcca-35d2b4146404
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid58a5f25a-95b8-4367-9219-cb7fdf2fc922
datacite.rightsopen.access
dc.contributor.authorKleine-Brüggeney, Maren
dc.contributor.authorGottfried, Anne
dc.contributor.authorNabecker, Sabine
dc.contributor.authorGreif, Robert
dc.contributor.authorBook, Malte
dc.contributor.authorTheiler, Lorenz
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-25T12:49:18Z
dc.date.available2024-10-25T12:49:18Z
dc.date.issued2017-09-02
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND Supraglottic airway devices (SGA) are commonly used in pediatric anesthesia and serve as primary or back-up devices for difficult airway management. Most SGA are marketed without proper clinical evaluation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the pediatric LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. METHODS This prospective observational study was performed at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. With ethics committee approval and a waiver for written informed consent 240 children undergoing elective surgery with an ASA class I-III and a weight of 5-30 kg were included. Three different pediatric supraglottic airway devices were assessed: The LMA Supreme™, Air-Q® and Ambu® Aura-i™. Primary outcome parameter was airway leak pressure. Secondary outcome parameters included first attempt and overall success rate, insertion time, fiberoptic view through the SGA, and adverse events. The primary hypothesis was that the mean airway leak pressure of each tested SGA was 20 cmH2O ± 10%. RESULTS None of the SGA showed a mean airway leak pressure of 20 cmH2O ± 10%, but mean airway leak pressures differed significantly between devices [LMA Supreme™ 18.0 (3.4) cmH2O, Air-Q® 15.9 (3.2) cmH2O, Ambu® Aura-i™ 17.3 (3.7) cmH2O, p < 0.001]. First attempt success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 90%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 91%, p = 0.02) and overall success rates (LMA Supreme™ 100%, Air-Q® 91%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 95%, p = 0.02) also differed significantly. Insertion times ranged from 20 (7) seconds (Air-Q®) to 24 (6) seconds (LMA Supreme™, <p = 0.005). Insertion was rated easiest with the LMA Supreme™ (very easy in 97% vs. Air-Q® 70%, Ambu® Aura-i™ 72%, p < 0.001). Fiberoptic view was similar between the SGA. Adverse events were rare. CONCLUSIONS Airway leak pressures ranged from 16 to 18 cmH2O, enabling positive pressure ventilation with all successful SGA. The highest success rates were achieved by the LMA Supreme™, which was also rated easiest to insert. TRIALS REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier NCT01625858 . Registered 31 May 2012.
dc.description.sponsorshipUniversitätsklinik für Anästhesiologie und Schmerztherapie
dc.identifier.doi10.7892/boris.105258
dc.identifier.pmid28865448
dc.identifier.publisherDOI10.1186/s12871-017-0403-6
dc.identifier.urihttps://boris-portal.unibe.ch/handle/20.500.12422/154376
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherBioMed Central
dc.relation.ispartofBMC anesthesiology
dc.relation.issn1471-2253
dc.relation.organizationDCD5A442BADCE17DE0405C82790C4DE2
dc.relation.organizationDCD5A442BDBCE17DE0405C82790C4DE2
dc.subjectAirway management General anesthesia Laryngeal mask airway Pediatric anesthesia Supraglottic airway device
dc.subject.ddc600 - Technology::610 - Medicine & health
dc.titlePediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study.
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
dspace.file.typetext
oaire.citation.issue1
oaire.citation.startPage119
oaire.citation.volume17
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversitätsklinik für Anästhesiologie und Schmerztherapie
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversitätsklinik für Anästhesiologie und Schmerztherapie
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversitätsklinik für Anästhesiologie und Schmerztherapie
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversitätsklinik für Anästhesiologie und Schmerztherapie
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversitätsklinik für Anästhesiologie und Schmerztherapie
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversitätsklinik für Anästhesiologie und Schmerztherapie
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.date.licenseChanged2017-09-27 11:10:41
unibe.description.ispublishedpub
unibe.eprints.legacyId105258
unibe.refereedtrue
unibe.subtype.articlejournal

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
s12871-017-0403-6.pdf
Size:
455.94 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
File Type:
text
License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Content:
published

Collections