Aintree Catheter Versus Gum Elastic Bougie for Airway Exchange Using the i-Gel Supraglottic Device: A Cadaver Study.

Abstract

Airway compromise is the third leading cause of preventable death on the battlefield. Most combat medics carry supraglottic airway (SGA) devices for airway management. However, exchanging an SGA device for a definitive airway can be challenging, especially in austere environments. This study aims to compare the Aintree intubation catheter (AIC) to the gum elastic bougie (GEB) as adjuncts for performing airway device exchange with the i-gel SGA device in place. This randomized crossover cadaver study of 48 participants examined the success rate of two endotracheal introducers (AIC and GEB) when performing a blind airway exchange with an i-gel in place. Study participants were combat medics (MOS 68W), physician assistant students, physician assistant staff, emergency medicine (EM) physician residents, and emergency medicine attending physicians attending classes at the installation Medical Simulations Training Center. Each participant performed up to three attempts using both endotracheal tube introducers on the same cadaver. The primary outcome was successful airway exchange rate with each device, and the secondary outcome was time to successful airway exchange. Although the AIC had a slightly higher success rate of 33% compared to the GEB success rate of 30%, this result was not statistically significant, P = .56. Similarly, participants completed successful airway exchanges with the AIC faster, with a mean time of 86.5 seconds (95% CI: 71.2 to 101.9) versus 101.2 seconds (95% CI: 85.5 to 116.9) with the GEB. However, this result was also not statistically significant, P = 0.18. This study demonstrates no significant difference in success rate and time to completion of successful iterations of airway exchanges between the two devices. Although the AIC performed slightly better overall, these results are not statistically significant. Additionally, blind exchange intubations appear to be of high risk with minimal success, so we recommend against this technique in routine practice.