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.

Higher insertion success with the i-gel supraglottic airway in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomised controlled trial

Middleton PM, Simpson PM, Thomas RE, Bendall JC. Resuscitation. 2014 Jul;85(7):893-7

Subjects with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were allocated to either the i-gel or Portex Soft Seal laryngeal mask group, within a large Australian ambulance group. Primary outcome was successful insertion of the airway. The i-gel had a significantly higher success rate than Portex Soft Seal and significantly lower median ease of insertion scores.

Link to abstract