Summary

Blind tracheal intubation through 2 supraglottic devices: the Ambu AuraGain vs the LMA Fastrach

López Correa T, Sastre JA, Garzón JC


Affiliation of the authors

Servicio de Anestesiología y Reanimación, Hospital Nuestra Señora de Sonsoles, Ávila, Spain. Servicio de Anestesiología y Reanimación, Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, Spain.

DOI

Quote

López Correa T, Sastre JA, Garzón JC. Blind tracheal intubation through 2 supraglottic devices: the Ambu AuraGain vs the LMA Fastrach. Emergencias. 2016;28:83-8

Summary

Background and objective.

Supraglottic devices are now considered first-line tools for managing the difficult airway. Our main aim was to compare the percentage of successful blind intubations achieved with the Ambu AuraGain and LMA Fastrach devices.

Methods.

Randomized, single-blind, parallel group trial. The following variables were analyzed: adequate ventilation, visualization of the glottis on the Brimacombe scale, success of blind intubation, and adverse events.

Results.

The devices were inserted in 80 patients (40 per group). Adequate ventilation was achieved with both devices, in 92.5% in the AuraGain group and in 95% in the LMA group. The AuraGain provided a better view of the glottis on 2 attempts (P<.001). The rate of intubation success was higher with the LMA (70%) than with the Aura- Gain (17.5%) (P<.001). Hoarseness and signs of bleeding were observed more often with the AuraGain device than with the LMA: hoarseness, 12.5% vs 0%, respectively, P.027; blood, 17.5% vs 0%, P=.006. Conclusion. Even though the 2 devices are similarly effective, blind intubation was superior with the LMA Fastrach mask.

 

More articles by the authors

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.