Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure between the Ambu® AuraGain™ and the LMA® Supreme™ supraglottic airways: a randomized-controlled trial

  • David T. Wong
  • Alister Ooi
  • Kawal P. Singh
  • Amelie Dallaire
  • Vina Meliana
  • Jason Lau
  • Frances Chung
  • Mandeep Singh
  • Jean Wong
Reports of Original Investigations
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Studies comparing the recently introduced Ambu® AuraGain™ (Auragain) with the LMA® Supreme™ (Supreme) supraglottic airway (SGA) have reported conflicting results regarding differences in oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). This randomized-controlled trial investigated the OLP of the Auragain compared with the Supreme in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery.

Methods

Adult patients with a body mass index ≤ 40 kg·m−2 presenting for ambulatory surgery and requiring an SGA were randomized to receive either the Auragain or the Supreme. Anesthesia was induced with lidocaine (1 mg·kg−1), fentanyl (1-2 μg·kg−1), and propofol (2-3 mg·kg−1). The SGA was inserted using a standard technique with the cuff inflated to 60 cmH2O. The groups were compared for the primary outcome of OLP.

Results

One hundred sixty-five patients (n = 81, Auragain; n = 84, Supreme) completed the study. Demographics were similar between the groups. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) OLP was significantly higher in the Auragain than in the Supreme group [26.4 (2.8) cmH2O vs 21.6 (3.4) cmH2O, respectively; difference in means (MD), 4.8 cmH2O; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.9 to 5.8; P < 0.001]. The mean (SD) insertion time was longer in the Auragain than in the Supreme group [13 (4) sec vs 11 (3) sec, respectively; MD, 2 sec; 95% CI, 1 to 3 sec; P < 0.001].

Conclusion

In patients undergoing ambulatory anesthesia, the OLP was higher but took longer to insert with the Auragain than with the Supreme. A higher OLP may allow for SGAs to be utilized in a wider range of patients and procedures.

Trial registration

www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02816463). Registered 28 June 2016.

Comparaison des pressions de fuite oropharyngée entre les masques laryngés Ambu® AuraGain™ et LMA® Supreme™: essai randomisé contrôlé

Résumé

Objectif

Des études comparant les voies respiratoires supraglottiques (SGA) Ambu® AuraGain™ (Auragain) nouvellement commercialisé et LMA® Supreme™ (Supreme) ont fourni des résultats contradictoires concernant les différences de pressions de fuite oropharyngée (OLP). Cet essai randomisé contrôlé a étudié l’OLP de l’Auragain comparativement à celle du Supreme chez des patients subissant une chirurgie ambulatoire.

Méthodes

Des patients adultes ayant un indice de masse corporelle ≤ 40 kg· m−2 venant pour chirurgie ambulatoire et nécessitant une SGA ont été randomisés pour bénéficier de l’Auragain ou du Supreme. L’anesthésie a été induite avec de la lidocaïne (1 mg· kg−1), du fentanyl (1-2 μg·kg−1) et du propofol (2-3 mg· kg−1). La SGA a été insérée selon une technique standard et le ballonnet a été gonflé à 60 cmH2O. Le principal critère d’évaluation comparé entre les deux groupes était l’OLP.

Résultats

Cent soixante-cinq patients (n = 81, Auragain; n = 84, Supreme) ont terminé l’étude. Les données démographiques étaient similaires entre les groupes. L’OLP moyenne (écart-type [ÉT]) était significativement plus élevée dans le groupe Auragain que dans le groupe Supreme (respectivement, 26,4 [2,8] cmH2O contre 21,6 [3,4] cmH2O; différence des moyennes, 4,8 cmH2O; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % : 3,9 à 5,8; P < 0,001). Le temps moyen (ÉT) d’insertion a été plus long dans le groupe Auragain que dans le groupe Supreme (respectivement, 13 [4] s contre 11 [3] s; différence des moyennes, 2 s; IC à 95 %, 1 à 3 s; P < 0,001).

Conclusion

Chez les patients subissant une anesthésie ambulatoire, l’OLP a été plus élevée avec l’Auragain qu’avec le Supreme, mais son insertion a pris plus de temps. Une OLP plus élevée pourrait permettre d’utiliser les SGA dans un plus vaste éventail de procédures et de patients.

Enregistrement de l’essai clinique

www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02816463). Enregistré le 28 juin 2016.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the anesthesiologists who participated in this study. The authors also thank Ambu Inc. (Ambu AuraGain™) and Teleflex Medical Canada Inc. (LMA Supreme™) for providing the SGAs free of charge for this study.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Editorial responsibility

This submission was handled by Dr. Hilary P. Grocott, Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia.

Author contributions

David T. Wong and Kawal P. Singh contributed substantially to all aspects of this manuscript, including conception and design, acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data, and drafting the article. Alister Ooi and Frances Chung contributed substantially to the conception, design, and drafting of the manuscript. Jason Lau, Mandeep Singh, and Jean Wong contributed to analyses of data and drafting of the article. Amelie Dallaire and Vina Meliana contributed to the acquisition and analysis of data and drafting of the article.

Funding

This study was supported in part by the Department of Anesthesia, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, and by the Toronto General & Western Hospital Foundation.

Ambu Inc. (Ambu AuraGain™) and Teleflex Medical Canada Inc. (LMA Supreme™) provided the supraglottic airways free of charge for this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Campo SL, Denman WT. The laryngeal mask airway: its role in the difficult airway. Int Anesthesiol Clin 2000; 38: 29-45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang L, Seet E, Mehta V, et al. Oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway Supreme™ at different intracuff pressures: a randomized controlled trial. Can J Anesth 2011; 58: 624-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keller C, Brimacombe JR, Keller K, Morris R. Comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth 1999; 82: 286-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moser B, Audigé L, Keller C, Brimacombe J, Gasteiger L, Bruppacher HR. Flexible bronchoscopic intubation through the AuraGain™ laryngeal mask versus a slit Guedel tube: a non-inferiority randomized-controlled trial. Can J Anesth 2017; 64: 1119-28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kleine-Brueggeney M, Kotarlic M, Theiler L, Greif R. Limitations of pediatric supraglottic airway devices as conduits for intubation - an in vitro study. Can J Anesth 2018; 65: 14-22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shin HW, Yoo HN, Bae GE, et al. Comparison of oropharyngeal leak pressure and clinical performance of LMA ProSeal™ and i-gel® in adults: meta-analysis and systematic review. J Int Med Res 2016; 44: 405-18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Hohlrieder M, Keller C. The laryngeal mask airway Supreme™ – a single use laryngeal mask airway with an oesophageal vent. A randomised, cross-over study with the laryngeal mask airway ProSeal™ in paralysed, anaesthetised patients. Anaesthesia 2009; 64: 79-83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wong DT, Yang JJ, Jagannathan N. Brief review: The LMA Supreme™ supraglottic airway. Can J Anesth 2012; 59: 483-93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jagannathan N, Hajduk J, Sohn L, et al. A randomised comparison of the Ambu® AuraGain™ and the LMA® supreme in infants and children. Anaesthesia 2016; 71: 205-12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lopez AM, Agusti M, Gambus P, Pons M, Anglada T, Valero R. A randomized comparison of the Ambu AuraGain versus the LMA supreme in patients undergoing gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery. J Clin Monit Comput 2017; 31: 1255-62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lopez AM, Sala-Blanch X, Valero R, Prats A. Cross-over assessment of the AmbuAuraGain, LMA Supreme New Cuff and Intersurgical I-Gel in fresh cadavers. Open J Anesthesiol 2014; 4: 332-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shariffuddin II, Teoh WH, Tang EB, Hashim NH, Loh PS. Ambu® AuraGain™ versus LMA Supreme™ Second Seal™: a randomised controlled trial comparing oropharyngeal leak pressures and gastric drain functionality in spontaneously breathing patients. Anaesth Intensive Care 2017; 45: 244-50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dobson G, Chong M, Chow L, et al. Guidelines to the practice of anesthesia - revised edition 2017. Can J Anesth 2017; 64: 65-91.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marshall SI, Chung F. Discharge criteria and complications after ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg 1999; 88: 508-17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brimacombe J, Holyoake L, Keller C, et al. Pharyngolaryngeal, neck, and jaw discomfort after anesthesia with the face mask and laryngeal mask airway at high and low cuff volumes in males and females. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 26-31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seet E, Rajeev S, Firoz T, et al. Safety and efficacy of laryngeal mask airway Supreme versus laryngeal mask airway ProSeal: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27: 602-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kang F, Li J, Chai X, Yu J, Zhang H. Tang Cl. Comparison of the I-gel laryngeal mask airway with the LMA-Supreme for airway management in patients undergoing elective lumbar vertebral surgery. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2014; 27: 37-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joly N, Poulin LP, Tanoubi I, Drolet P, Donati F, St-Pierre P. Randomized prospective trial comparing two supraglottic airway devices: i-gel™ and LMA-Supreme™ in paralyzed patients. Can J Anesth 2014; 61: 794-800.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tiefenthaler W, Eschertzhuber S, Brimacombe J, Fricke E, Keller C, Kaufmann M. A randomised, non-crossover study of the GuardianCPV™ Laryngeal Mask versus the LMA Supreme™ in paralysed, anaesthetised female patients. Anaesthesia 2013; 68: 600-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beleña JM, Núñez M, Anta D, et al. Comparison of Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme and Laryngeal Mask Airway Proseal with respect to oropharyngeal leak pressure during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2013; 30: 119-23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Russo SG, Cremer S, Galli T, et al. Randomized comparison of the i-gel™, the LMA Supreme™, and the Laryngeal Tube Suction-D using clinical and fibreoptic assessments in elective patients. BMC Anesthesiol 2012; 12: 18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Zundert TC, Brimacombe JR. Similar oropharyngeal leak pressures during anaesthesia with i-gel™, LMA-ProSeal™ and LMA-Supreme™ laryngeal masks. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 2012; 63: 35-41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ragazzi R, Finessi L, Farinelli I, Alvisi R, Volta CA. LMA Supreme™ vs i-gel™–a comparison of insertion success in novices. Anaesthesia 2012; 67: 384-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    López AM, Valero R, Hurtado P, Gambus P, Pons M, Anglada T. Comparison of the LMA Supreme™ with the LMA Proseal™ for airway management in patients anaesthetized in prone position. Br J Anaesth 2011; 107: 265-71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ali MZ, Ebied RS, El-Tawdy AF, Refaat AI, Kamal NM. Controlled mechanical ventilation with LMA Sureme™ versus i-gel™ in anesthetized adult patients. J Egypt Soc Parasitol 2011; 41: 365-78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beleña JM, Gracia JL, Ayala JL, et al. The Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme for positive pressure ventilation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Clin Anesth 2011; 23: 456-60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Teoh WH, Lee KM, Suhitharan T, Yahaza Z, Teo MM, Sia AT. Comparison of the LMA Supreme vs the i-gel™ in paralysed patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery with controlled ventilation. Anaesthesia 2010; 65: 1173-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tham HM, Tan SM, Woon KL, Zhao YD. A comparison of the Supreme™ laryngeal mask airway with the Proseal™ laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized paralyzed adult patients: a randomized crossover study. Can J Anesth 2010; 57: 672-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chew EE, Hashim NH, Wang CY. Randomised comparison of the LMA Supreme™ with the I-Gel™ in spontaneously breathing anaesthetised adult patients. Anaesth Intensive Care 2010; 38: 1018-22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee AK, Tey JB, Lim Y, Sia AT. Comparison of the single-use LMA Supreme with the reusable ProSeal LMA for anaesthesia in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care 2009; 37: 815-9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hosten T, Gurkan Y, Ozdamar D, Tekin M, Toker K, Solak M. A new supraglottic airway device: LMA-Supreme™, comparison with LMA-Proseal™. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009; 53: 852-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Timmermann A, Cremer S, Eich C, et al. Prospective clinical and fiberoptic evaluation of the Supreme laryngeal mask airway™. Anesthesiology 2009; 110: 262-5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Natalini G, Lanza G, Rosano A, Dell’Agnolo P, Bernardini A. Standard Laryngeal Mask Airway™ and LMA-ProSeal™ during laparoscopic surgery. J Clin Anesth 2003; 15: 428-32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Singh K, Gurha P. Comparative evaluation of Ambu AuraGain™ with ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Indian J Anaesth 2017; 61: 469-74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maitra S, Khanna P, Baidya DK. Comparison of laryngeal mask airway Supreme and laryngeal mask airway Pro-Seal for controlled ventilation during general anaesthesia in adult patients: systematic review with meta-analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2014; 31: 266-73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chen X, Jiao J, Cong X, Liu L, Wu X. A comparison of the performance of the I-gel™ vs. the LMA-S™ during anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2013; 8: e71910.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sethi S, Maitra S, Saini V, Samara T. Comparison of Ambu® AuraGain™ laryngeal mask and air-Q™ intubating laryngeal airway for blind tracheal intubation in adults: a randomized controlled trial. Egypt J Anaesth 2017; 33: 137-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anesthesia, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Northern AnaestheticsFlemingtonAustralia

Personalised recommendations