Randomized equivalence trial of the King Vision aBlade videolaryngoscope with the Miller direct laryngoscope for routine tracheal intubation in children <2 yr of age.

BACKGROUND.: We conducted a randomized equivalence trial to compare direct laryngoscopy using a Miller blade (DL) with the King Vision videolaryngoscope (KVL) for routine tracheal intubation. We hypothesized that tracheal intubation times with DL would be equivalent to the KVL in children <2 yr of age. METHODS.: Two hundred children were randomly assigned to tracheal intubation using DL or KVL. The primary outcome was the median difference in the total time for successful tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes assessed were tracheal intubation attempts, time to best glottic view, time for tracheal tube entry, percentage of glottic opening score, airway manoeuvres needed, and complications. RESULTS.: The median difference between the groups was 5.7 s, with an upper 95% confidence interval of 7.5 s, which was less than our defined equivalence time difference of 10 s. There were no differences in the number of tracheal intubation attempts and the time to best glottic view [DL median 5.3 (4.1-7.6) s vs KVL 5.0 (4.0-6.3) s; P =0.19]. The percentage of glottic opening score was better when using the KVL [median 100 (100-100) vs DL median 100 (90-100); P <0.0001]. Use of DL was associated with greater need for airway manoeuvres during tracheal intubation (33 vs 7%; P <0.001). Complications did not differ between devices. CONCLUSIONS.: In children <2 yr of age, the KVL was associated with equivalent times for routine tracheal intubation when compared with the Miller blade. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02590237.

A randomised comparison of the Ambu® AuraGain™ and the LMA® supreme in infants and children.

We conducted a randomised trial in 100 children in order to compare the clinical performance of the Ambu(®) AuraGain(™) and the LMA(®) Supreme(*) for airway maintenance during mechanical ventilation. The primary outcomes were initial and 10-min airway leak pressures. Ease, time and success rates for device and gastric tube insertion, fibreoptic grades of view, airway quality during anaesthetic maintenance, and complications were also assessed. There were no differences in the initial and ten min airway leak pressures between the Ambu AuraGain and LMA Supreme, median (IQR [range]) initial: 19 (16-22 [10-34]) vs 18 (14-24 [8-40]) cmH2 O, p = 0.4; and ten min: 22 (18-26 [11-40]) vs 20 (16-26 [12-40]) cmH2 O, p = 0.08, respectively. Ease, time and success rates for device placement, gastric tube insertion and complications were also not significantly different. Children receiving the LMA Supreme required more airway manouevers (7 vs 1 patient, p = 0.06) to maintain a patent airway. Our results suggest that the Ambu AuraGain may be a useful alternative to the LMA Supreme, as demonstrated by comparable overall clinical performance in children.

Randomized comparison of experts and trainees with nasal and oral fibreoptic intubation in children less than 2 yr of age.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that the time to successful fibreoptic tracheal intubation through the nasal route would be faster than the oral route for both experts and trainees in children <2 yr of age. METHODS: One hundred children, 24 months and under in age, were randomized to an operator (expert or trainee), and route (nasal or oral) for fibreoptic tracheal intubation. Three separate times were then measured: (i) time to first glottic view, (ii) time to carinal view, and (iii) total time to successful tracheal intubation. The number of attempts made, manoeuvres needed to obtain an adequate laryngeal view, and manoeuvres for tracheal tube passage were also recorded. RESULTS: Time to successful tracheal intubation was significantly faster for experts than trainees. There was no difference in the time to tracheal intubation between the nasal and oral routes for experts. In trainees, intubation times were shorter for the nasal route-median (inter-quartile range) time (s) to carinal view was 35 (27-63) for the nasal route vs 59 (38-94) for the oral route (P=0.03), and the median time to successful tracheal intubation were 62 (49-122) vs 117 (61-224), P=0.05, for the nasal and oral routes, respectively. For trainees, the oral route required a greater number of airway manoeuvres for adequate laryngeal views and passage of the tracheal tube compared with the nasal route. CONCLUSIONS: For clinicians with less experience in using paediatric bronchoscopes, fibreoptic tracheal intubation through the nasal route may be a more straightforward process than the oral route in children <2 yr of age. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02029300 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

A randomised comparison of free-handed vs air-Q assisted fibreoptic-guided tracheal intubation in children < 2 years of age.

We prospectively compared free-handed and air-Q™ assisted fibreoptic-guided tracheal intubation in children < 2 years of age. Eighty healthy children were enrolled and randomly assigned to a technique (free-handed or air-Q assisted) and operator (trainee or attending). Time, number of attempts and manoeuvres required were assessed. There was no difference in median (IQR [range]) time to successful tracheal intubation between the free-handed (52.2 (34.8-67.7 [19.7-108.0]) s), and the air-Q assisted (60.3 (45.5-75.1 [28.1-129.0]) s; p = 0.13) groups, or the number of attempts needed. The air-Q assisted group required fewer manoeuvres to optimise the laryngeal view (median (IQR [range]) 0 (0-1 [0-2])) than the free-handed group (1 (1-1 [0-3]); p < 0.001). In conclusion, fibreoptic-guided tracheal intubation times were similar with and without the use of the air-Q, but supraglottic airway devices may be a consideration for their other practical advantages.

A randomised comparison of the LMA SupremeTM and LMAProSealTM in children.

We conducted a randomised trial comparing the size-2 LMA Supreme™ with the LMA ProSeal™ in 60 children undergoing surgery. The outcomes measured were airway leak pressure, ease and time for insertion, fibreoptic examination, incidence of gastric insufflation, ease of gastric tube placement, quality of the airway during anaesthetic maintenance and complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the LMA Supreme and LMA ProSeal in median (IQR [range]) insertion time (12 (10-15 [7-18]) s vs 12 (10-13 [8-25]) s; p = 0.90), airway leak pressures (19 (16-21 [12-30]) cmH(2) O vs 18 (16-24 [10-34]) cmH(2) O; p = 0.55), fibreoptic position of the airway or drain tube, ease of gastric access and complications. Both devices provided effective ventilation requiring minimal airway manipulation. The LMA Supreme can be a useful alternative to the LMA ProSeal when single-use supraglottic devices with gastric access capabilities are required.

A randomised trial comparing the laryngeal mask airway Supreme™ with the laryngeal mask airway Unique™ in children.

We conducted a randomised controlled trial comparing the laryngeal mask airway Supreme(™) with the laryngeal mask airway Unique(™) in children. Fifty children presenting for elective surgery were randomly assigned to receive either the laryngeal mask airway Supreme or laryngeal mask airway Unique. The outcomes measured were airway leak pressure, ease and time for insertion, insertion success rate, fibreoptic examination, incidence of gastric insufflation, ease of gastric tube placement through the laryngeal mask airway Supreme, quality of airway during anaesthetic maintenance and complications. Median (IQR [range]) time to successful device placement was shorter with the laryngeal mask airway Unique, 14.5 [13.5-16.3 (10.0-23.6)] s than with the laryngeal mask airway Supreme, 17.4 [14.8-19.8 (11.5-29.2)] s; p = 0.007. Median (IQR [range]) airway leak pressures for the laryngeal mask airway Supreme and laryngeal mask airway Unique were 20 [16-21 (12-22)] cmH(2)O and 15 [14-18 (10-24)] cmH(2)O, respectively (p = 0.001). The incidence of gastric insufflation was lower with the laryngeal mask airway Supreme (zero vs six patients), p = 0.01. In conclusion, the laryngeal mask airway Supreme performed as well as the laryngeal mask airway Unique and is a useful alternative for airway maintenance, particularly in children who require evacuation of gastric contents during anaesthesia.

A randomised comparison of the self-pressurised air-QTM intubating laryngeal airway with the LMA Unique™ in children.

We conducted a randomised trial comparing the self-pressurised air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway (air-Q SP) with the LMA-Unique in 60 children undergoing surgery. Outcomes measured were airway leak pressure, ease and time for insertion, fibreoptic examination, incidence of gastric insufflation and complications. Median (IQR [range]) time to successful device placement was faster with the air-Q SP (12 (10-15 [5-18])) s than with the LMA-Unique (14 (12-17 [6-22]) s; p=0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the air-Q SP and LMA-Unique in initial airway leak pressures (16 (14-18 [10-29]) compared with 18 (15-20 [10-30]) cmH2 O, p=0.12), an airway leak pressures at 10 min (19 (16-22 [12-30]) compared with 20 (16-22 [10-30]) cmH2 O, p=0.81); fibreoptic position, incidence of gastric insufflation, or complications. Both devices provided effective ventilation without the need for airway manipulation. The air-Q SP is an alternative to the LMA-Unique should the clinician prefer a device not requiring cuff monitoring during anaesthesia.