• DOI:10.1213/ANE.0b013e318236f438
• Corpus ID: 29970145

Tracheal intubation through the I-gel™ supraglottic airway versus the LMA Fastrach™: a randomized controlled trial.

@article{Halwagi2012TrachealIT,
  title={Tracheal intubation through the I-gel{\texttrademark} supraglottic airway versus the LMA Fastrach{\texttrademark}: a randomized controlled trial.},
  author={Antoine Halwagi and Nathalie Massicotte and Alexandre Lallo and Alain Gauthier and Daniel Boudreault and Monique Ruel and François Girard},
  journal={Anesthesia and analgesia},
  year={2012},
  volume={114 1},
  pages={
          152-6
        }
}

• Antoine Halwagi, Nathalie Massicotte, +4 authors F. Girard
• Published 2012
• Medicine
• Anesthesia and analgesia

BACKGROUND
The i-gel™ is a supraglottic airway device not requiring inflation of a cuff for lung ventilation. Its design allows for unobstructed passage of a tracheal tube and previous studies have demonstrated a favorable alignment with the glottic inlet. In this prospective randomized study, we compared the success rate of blind tracheal intubation using the i-gel and the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) Fastrach™.

METHODS
One hundred sixty patients requiring general anesthesia and airway management were randomized to tracheal intubation using the i-gel or the LMA Fastrach. After induction of general anesthesia, the allocated device was inserted and adequate lung ventilation was confirmed. Blind tracheal intubation was then attempted. First attempt and overall tracheal intubation success rates were evaluated and tracheal intubation times were measured.

RESULTS
Eighty patients were recruited in each study group. Successful tracheal intubation was obtained on the first attempt in 69% of patients with the i-gel and 74% of patients with the LMA Fastrach (95% confidence interval [CI] of difference, -9% to 19%, P = 0.60). The overall intubation success rate was lower using the i-gel than it was using the LMA Fastrach (73% vs 91%, 95% CI of difference, 7% to 31%, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS
On first attempts, successful blind tracheal intubation was obtained at comparable rates using the i-gel and the LMA Fastrach. However, when the first attempt was unsuccessful, subsequent attempts through the i-gel did not significantly increase tracheal intubation success rate. The LMA Fastrach yielded a higher overall intubation success rate.