Home > Journals > Minerva Anestesiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Anestesiologica 2017 February;83(2) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2017 February;83(2):165-74

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Freefree

Minerva Anestesiologica 2017 February;83(2):165-74

DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.16.11112-5

Copyright © 2016 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

LMA Supreme™ and Ambu® AuraGain™ in anesthetized adult patients: a prospective observational study

Marc KRIEGE, Tim PIEPHO, Susanne ZANKER, Christian ALFLEN, Florian HEID, Rüdiger R. NOPPENS

Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany


PDF


BACKGROUND: Second-generation laryngeal masks with gastric access are increasingly used in daily practice and expand the indications for laryngeal masks in the OR. Only limited data exist comparing different types of laryngeal masks. We investigated the second-generation laryngeal masks LMA Supreme™ and Ambu® AuraGain™ in a clinical setting. We hypothesized that the two devices would be comparable in terms of success rate and airway complications.
METHODS: After approval from the local ethics committee, data were collected in a prospective trial. Endpoints were success rate, time to insertion and airway morbidity. Anesthesiologists used either the Supreme (Teleflex Medical GmbH) or Gain (Ambu GmbH) laryngeal mask. Patients <18 years and those with a possible risk of regurgitation were excluded.
RESULTS: Data from 351 adult patients were documented (Supreme N.=177; Gain N.=174). Success rate for first attempt was 80% (Supreme) and 72% (Gain; P=0.08). Overall success rate was 89% and 92%, respectively (P=0.38). Providers with minimal experience were more successful at first attempt using Supreme (95%), compared to Gain (67%; P=0.01). The median insertion time was shorter in Supreme at 18 s [interquartile range (IQR), 14-25 s] compared to 30 s for Gain [18-41s] (P<0.0001). A higher incidence of airway complications was observed after device removal for Gain (P=0.009).
CONCLUSIONS: Supreme was superior to Gain in terms of insertion time and airway morbidity. Novices were more successful at first attempt using Supreme. These differences between supraglottic airway devices might be due to the different shapes and materials of the masks.


KEY WORDS: Laryngeal masks - Airway management - Complications

top of page