Comparison of Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask and air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway for blind tracheal intubation in adults: A randomized controlled trial
- Publisher: Elsevier BV
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine | Anesthesiology | Air-Q™ | Ambu® AuraGain™ | Blind tracheal intubation | Adults | RD78.3-87.3
Background: This study has been designed to compare the performance of Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask with the air-Q™ as a conduit for blind tracheal intubation in adult patients.
Methods: In this prospective randomized controlled trial blind endotracheal intubation success rates were compared between Ambu® AuraGain™ and air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway in 90 adult patients. Patients were randomized in two equal groups: Group Ambu® AuraGain™ (n = 45) and Group air-Q™ (n = 45).
Results: Time to insert the laryngeal airway was similar between Ambu® AuraGain™ and air-Q™ (median [IQR] 13[12–14] s versus 14[12–16] s) and in all cases laryngeal mask insertion was possible in first attempt. Intubation success rate at first attempt was significantly higher in air-Q™ group compared to in Ambu® AuraGain™ group (68.9% versus 35.6%; p = 0.002). Overall blind intubation success rate was significantly higher in air-Q™ group in comparison to Ambu® AuraGain™ (80% versus 53.3%; p = 0.007). Intubation time was significantly higher with Ambu® AuraGain™ (p < 0.0001; median difference 4.0 s, 95% CI 2.7, 5.3 s). Blind intubation was significantly easier in air-Q™ group compared to in Ambu® AuraGain™ (42.2% intubation was graded as easy in air-Q™ instead of 22.2% in Ambu® AuraGain™, p = 0.04). Comparison of fibreoptic bronchoscopic glottis view was similar between the two devices (p = 0.07). Reported complications were infrequent and similar between the two devices.
Conclusion: We conclude that air-Q™ laryngeal airway is superior to Ambu® AuraGain™ when used as a conduit for blind endotracheal intubation in adult patients.
Trial registration: Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2015/02/005553).