Evaluation of the i‐gel® Plus supraglottic airway device in elective surgery: a prospective international multicentre study
Summary Background The i‐gel® Plus is a modified version of the i‐gel® supraglottic airway device. It contains a wider drainage port; a longer tip; ramps inside the breathing channel; and an additional port for oxygen delivery. There has been no prospective evaluation of this device in clinical prac...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Anaesthesia 2024-12, Vol.79 (12), p.1284-1291 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Summary
Background
The i‐gel® Plus is a modified version of the i‐gel® supraglottic airway device. It contains a wider drainage port; a longer tip; ramps inside the breathing channel; and an additional port for oxygen delivery. There has been no prospective evaluation of this device in clinical practice.
Methods
This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the performance of the i‐gel Plus in adult patients undergoing elective procedures under general anaesthesia. The primary outcome was overall insertion success rate, defined as the ability to provide effective airway management through the device from insertion until the end of the surgical procedure. Secondary outcomes included device performance and incidence of postoperative adverse events. Data from the first 1000 patients are reported.
Results
In total, 1012 patients were enrolled; 12 forms were excluded from the final analysis due to incomplete data leaving 1000 included patients (545 female). Overall insertion success rate was 98.6%, with a first‐attempt success rate of insertion of 88.2%. A significant difference between females and males was seen for the overall success rate (97.4% vs. 99.6% respectively) but not for first‐attempt successful insertion. Mean (SD) oropharyngeal seal pressure was 32 (7) cmH2O. The only independent factor that increased the risk of first‐attempt failure was low operator experience. Complications included desaturation |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0003-2409 1365-2044 1365-2044 |
DOI: | 10.1111/anae.16401 |