i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

A comprehensive list of all known published clinical evidence on the device

Is an i-gel supraglottic airway useful for airway rescue in the community?

Peutrell I, Jennison N. British Journal of Midwifery 2014 May; 22(5): 254-8

Twenty midwives asked to manage newborn resuscitation scenarios on a manikin using two techniques: Bag valve mask with a Guedel, and a bag with an i-gel. Time to first breath quicker with i-gel, no significant difference in duration of inflation breaths. Higher inflation pressures generated with i-gel.

Link to abstract

Shift of the i-gel position after chest compression: comparison of fixation methods using Durapore tape, Multipore tape, or a fixation strap

Seno H, Komasawa N, Fujiwara S, Miyazaki S, Tatsumi S, Sawai T, Minami T. Masui. 2014 May;63(5):590-3

Manikin study to investigate effectiveness of three fixation methods on an automated chest compressor. Fixation strap may prove useful in stabilising i-gel insertion in this scenario.

Link to abstract

A randomised crossover comparison of manikin ventilation through Soft Seal®, i-gelTM and AuraOnceTM supraglottic airway devices by surf lifeguards

Adelborg K, Al-Mashhadi RH, Nielsen LH, Dalgas C, Mortensen MB and Løfgren B. Anaesthesia. 2014 Apr; 69(4): 343-7

Forty lifeguards took part in this manikin study, where time to ventilation and proportion of successful ventilations (both with and without ‘concurrent’ chest compressions) were measured. Mean time to ventilate with i-gel® was 15.6 seconds, compared to 35.2 for Soft Seal and 35.1 for AuraOnce. Authors concluded that ‘most lifeguards preferred the i-gel®’.

Link to abstract

Comparison of blind intubation through the i-gel and ILMA Fastrach by nurses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a manikin study

Melissopoulou T, Stroumpoulis K, Sampanis M A, Vrachnis N, Papadopoulos G, Chalkias A, Xanthos T. Heart Lung. 2014 Mar-Apr; 43(2): 112-6

A group of 45 nurses inserted the i-gel® and ILMA in a manikin with and without continuous chest compressions. ILMA proved more successful than the i-gel®, but continuation of compressions caused higher insertion times in both devices. Authors conclude that nursing staff can use both devices ‘as conduits with comparable success rates, regardless of whether chest compressions are interrupted or not’.

Link to abstract

Comparison of insertion of the modified i-gel airway for oral surgery with the LMA Flexible: a manikin study.

Sanuki T, Sugioka S, Komasawa N, Ueki R, Kaminoh Y, Kotani J. Anesth Prog. 2014 Winter;61(4):145-9

Manikin study, including novice practitioners, using a modified i-gel device and LMA Flexible. Mean insertion time was significantly shorter for the modified i-gel.

Link to abstract