Authors: Artime C et al
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (JCA) 33 41-6 (Sep 2016)
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.
AIN 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.