Ambu AuraGain versus intubating laryngeal tube suction as a conduit for endotracheal intubation.

Abstract

Background and Aims:Newly developed supraglottic airway devices (SGAs) are designed to be used both for ventilation and as conduits for endotracheal intubation with standard endotracheal tubes (ETTs). We compared the efficacy of the Ambu AuraGain (AAG) and the newly developed intubating laryngeal tube suction disposable (ILTS-D) as conduits for blind and fiber-optically guided endotracheal intubation in an airway mannequin.Material and Methods:This is a prospective, randomized, crossover study in an airway mannequin, with two arms: blind ETT insertion by medical students and fiber-optically guided ETT insertion by anesthesiologists. The primary outcome variable was the time to achieve an effective airway through an ETT using AAG and ILTS-D as conduits. Secondary outcome variables were the time to achieve effective supraglottic ventilation and successful exchange with an ETT, and the success rates for blind endotracheal intubation and fiber-optically guided intubation techniques for both SGAs.Results:Forty participants were recruited to each group. All participants were able to insert both devices successfully on the first attempt. For blind intubation, the success rate for establishing a definitive airway with an ETT using the SGA as a conduit was significantly higher with ILTS-D (82.5%) compared with AAG (20.0%) (P < 0.001). None of the participants were able to successfully complete the exchange of the SGA for the ETT with the AAG. In the fiber optic guided intubation group, the rate of successful exchange was significantly higher with ILTS-D (84.6%) compared with AAG (61.5%) (P = 0.041).Conclusion:The ILTS-D successfully performs in an airway mannequin with higher success rate and shorter time for blindly establishing an airway with an ETT using the SGA as a conduit, compared with AAG. Further clinical trials are warranted.