PMID- 27676414
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20190725
LR  - 20220408
IS  - 1827-1596 (Electronic)
IS  - 0375-9393 (Linking)
VI  - 83
IP  - 2
DP  - 2017 Feb
TI  - LMA Supreme and Ambu(R) AuraGain in anesthetized adult patients: a prospective 
      observational study.
PG  - 165-174
LID - 10.23736/S0375-9393.16.11112-5 [doi]
AB  - 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(R) 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.
FAU - Kriege, Marc
AU  - Kriege M
AD  - Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes 
      Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
FAU - Piepho, Tim
AU  - Piepho T
AD  - Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes 
      Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany - piepho@uni-mainz.de.
FAU - Zanker, Susanne
AU  - Zanker S
AD  - Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes 
      Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
FAU - Alflen, Christian
AU  - Alflen C
AD  - Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes 
      Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
FAU - Heid, Florian
AU  - Heid F
AD  - Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes 
      Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
FAU - Noppens, Rudiger R
AU  - Noppens RR
AD  - Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes 
      Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Observational Study
DEP - 20160927
PL  - Italy
TA  - Minerva Anestesiol
JT  - Minerva anestesiologica
JID - 0375272
CIN - Minerva Anestesiol. 2018 Mar;84(3):411-413. PMID: 29152930
MH  - Aged
MH  - Airway Management/*instrumentation
MH  - *Anesthesia
MH  - Equipment Design
MH  - Female
MH  - Humans
MH  - *Laryngeal Masks
MH  - Male
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - Prospective Studies
EDAT- 2016/09/28 06:00
MHDA- 2019/07/26 06:00
CRDT- 2016/09/28 06:00
PHST- 2016/09/28 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2019/07/26 06:00 [medline]
PHST- 2016/09/28 06:00 [entrez]
AID - R02Y9999N00A16092701 [pii]
AID - 10.23736/S0375-9393.16.11112-5 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Minerva Anestesiol. 2017 Feb;83(2):165-174. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.16.11112-5. 
      Epub 2016 Sep 27.