i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

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

Should supraglottic airway devices be used by lifeguards at all?

Baker P, Webber J. Anaesthesia 2014; 69(8): 928-9

A further response to Adelborg et al (Anaesthesia. 2014 Apr;69(4):343-7), expressing concern at this being a manikin study, and suggesting that the “vital issue” is whether a device is “fit for purpose” in the case of a drowning patient.

Link to abstract

A reply

Lofgren B, Adelborg K. Anaesthesia 2014; 69(8): 929-30

A response to the two concerns raised by McKenna (Anaesthesia 2014; 69(8): 928) and Baker (Anaesthesia 2014; 69(8): 928-9), acknowledging that more studies are needed and that there is currently “insufficient evidence” to recommend any specific ventilation technique among lifeguards. They also reiterate their study conclusions.

Link to abstract

Comparison of supraglottic devices i-gel(®) and LMA Fastrach(®) as conduit for endotracheal intubation

Kapoor S, Jethava DD, Gupta P, Jethava D, Kumar A. Indian J Anaesth. 2014 Jul;58(4):397-402.

Two randomised groups were assigned either device and after insertion, blind tracheal intubation was attempted. Success at first attempt and overall intubation success rates were assessed. Authors concluded that the i-gel is 'a better device' for rescue ventilation.

Link to abstract.

Pre-hospital airway management: The data grows rapidly but controversy remains

Lockey D, Lossius HM. Resuscitation 2014; 85(7): 849-50

An editorial discussing three studies published in the same journal issue covering different aspects of emergency advanced airway management, both out of and inside the hospital.

Link to abstract