i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Randomised crossover comparison between the i-gel® and the LMA Unique® in anaesthetised, paralysed adults

Uppal V, Gangaiah S, Fletcher G, Kinsella J. Br J Anaesth 2009; 103(6): 882-885

In this study, the i-gel® and LMA Unique® were both used in 39 patients. Leak pressure, insertion attempts, number of airway manipulations and leak volumes were similar for both devices. Insertion time was significantly less for the i-gel® at 12.2s compared to 15.2s for the LMA Unique®. It can be concluded that the i-gel® is a reasonable alternative to the LMA Unique® during controlled ventilation.

Link to abstract.



Airway management for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - more data required

Nolan JP, Lockey D. Resuscitation 2009; 80(12): 1333-1334

This editorial discusses the options that are available for airway management when cardiac arrest occurs outside a hospital environment. It is stated that supraglottic airways are easier to insert than endotracheal tubes and have the added benefit of allowing chest compressions to continue while they are inserted. The article references i-gel® studies with both positive and negative outcomes. Overall, insertion time was quicker but ventilation was sometimes found to be inadequate. One study showed that the i-gel® had a higher leak pressure than the cLMA, however a German study found that the i-gel® produced a tight seal at 20cm H2O in only around half of the patients involved. Most of the available i-gel® data comes from small studies. Randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm the performance of the i-gel® and other supraglottic airways during CPR.

Link to abstract.